scholarly journals Sentencing Factors Concerning Those Most Responsible for International Crimes in Peru: An Analysis vis-à-vis International Criminal Court Sources

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-126
Author(s):  
Juan-Pablo Perez-Leon-Acevedo
Keyword(s):  
Communist Party ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Shining Path ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Alberto Fujimori

Peruvian courts convicted those most responsible for acts that constitute or amount to international crimes committed during Peru’s internal conflict (1980–2000), namely, ex-leaders of the terrorist organisation Shining Path-Peruvian Communist Party and ex-senior state officials, including ex-President Alberto Fujimori. The present article seeks to identify, systematise and discuss the sentencing factors applied in this case-law. The analysis is also conducted comparatively vis-à-vis the law and practice of the International Criminal Court (icc). Sentencing factors in the examined Peruvian law and practice may be categorised into two groups: crime/culpability-related factors and offender’s personal circumstances-related factors. The article concludes that Peruvian sentencing law and practice are generally similar to icc sources.

scholarly journals On Implementation of Intersectionality in Prosecuting and Adjudicating Mass Atrocities by the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Gregor Maučec
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Abstract This article examines the relevant case law of the International Criminal Court (hereafter icc or Court) in order to assess the actual scope, confines and prospects of taking ‘intersectionality’ perspective in the Court’s prosecution and adjudication of mass atrocities involving discriminatory targeting. While the icc Prosecutor and judges traditionally resorted to uni-sectional analysis in considering such atrocities, some of the Court’s more recent jurisprudence subsequent to the adoption of the icc Prosecutor’s Policy Papers on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes (2014) and on Children (2016) seems to be indicative of a more intersectionality-friendly approach to prosecuting and adjudicating international crimes against different protected groups and their members. In addition to the two Prosecutor’s policy documents—both of which explicitly address the interplay between phenomena of interesectional discrimination and mass crimes in the work of the icc Prosecutor—the Al Hassan confirmation decision, carii decisions and Ntaganda reparations order appear to betoken similarly positive developments towards pursuing more intersectional approach in the icc case law. A critical and chronological assessment of the Court’s intersectionality jurisprudence, however, suggests that it may be too early to say that these recent developments in icc case law are to be seen as an indication of an emerging trend to give greater and more conscious consideration to the intersectionality phenomena in its rulings. They may just as well simply represent occasional lucid moments in the Court’s reasoning and pronouncement on this complex issue. It is accordingly proposed that the icc should take intersectionality more seriously in both prosecution and adjudication of international crimes that involve multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. Having discussed what that might have looked like in some of the earlier icc case law, the article turns to consider the prospects and space for the icc to actually implement intersectionality in its future jurisprudence. It looks at potential practical implications of the proposed jurisprudential developments for the Court and for the field of international criminal justice more generally. Finally, the article also reflects on the eventual pitfalls and challenges that such a regular and consistent intersectionality-driven interpretation and application of international criminal law may present for the Court.

Reparations for Victims of Mass Atrocities: Actual and Potential Contributions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the International Criminal Court

2019 ◽  
pp. 306-336
Author(s):  
Juan-Pablo Perez-Leon-Acevedo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Institutional Aspects ◽  
Substantive Law

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has developed important reparations case-law, especially concerning serious human rights violations. Among international and hybrid criminal tribunals (ICTs), the International Criminal Court (ICC) introduced the first reparations system for victims of international crimes under its jurisdiction. However, whereas the IACtHR orders reparations against states, the ICC can only order reparations against convicted individuals. Thus, this article examines whether, to what extent and how the IACtHR’s practice has actually contributed and/or may potentially contribute to the substantive law and institutional aspects of the ICC’s reparations system. It is found that the ICC’s reparations practice has extensively used the IACtHR’s reparations case-law, especially concerning substantive law, as adapted to the nature and mandate of the ICC. Besides these contributions, the IACtHR’s potential contributions to enhance institutionally the ICC’s reparations system, particularly as for reparations implementation, are discussed.

NGOs for International Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjersti Lohne
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Relative Lack ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Oriented Approach

Kjersti Lohne describes the impact of non-governmental organizations at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in particular discussing the relative lack of regard for defendants’ rights, and especially highlighting the difficulties encountered by those acquitted. After the Coalition for the International Criminal Court contributed to the establishment of the ICC itself in the fight against impunity for international crimes, that Coalition has continued a victim-oriented approach, arguably at the expense of defendants’ rights. The ICC’s focus on victims, ‘truth’, and ‘memory’ may challenge the legitimacy of the Court in the longer run.

scholarly journals Tilting at windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Luke Moffett ◽  
Clara Sandoval
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Crimes

Abstract More than 20 years on from the signing of the Rome Statute, delivering victim-centred justice through reparations has been fraught with legal and practical challenges. The Court’s jurisprudence on reparations only began to emerge from 2012 and struggles to find purchase on implementation on the ground. In its first few cases of Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi the eligibility and forms of reparations have been limited to certain victims, subject to years of litigation, and faced difficulties in delivery due to ongoing insecurity. This is perhaps felt most acutely in the Bemba case, where more than 5,000 victims of murder, rape and pillage were waiting for redress, and the defendant was not indigent, but where he was later acquitted on appeal, thereby extinguishing reparation proceedings. This article critically appraises the jurisprudence and practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on reparations. It looks at competing principles and rationales for reparations at the Court in light of comparative practice in international human rights law and transitional justice processes to consider what is needed to ensure that the ICC is able to deliver on its reparations mandate. An underpinning argument is that reparations at the ICC cannot be seen in isolation from other reparation practices in the states where the Court operates. Reparative complementarity for victims of international crimes is essential to maximize the positive impact that the fulfilment of this right can have on victims and not to sacrifice the legitimacy of the Court, nor quixotically strive for the impossible.

Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.

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 The African Allegations towards Ignorance of International Criminal Court: Does International Criminal Court unfairly focusing on Africa?

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. p37
Author(s):  
Lamessa Gudeta Guder
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
African Government ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
And Function ◽  
Ongoing Support

Though, African continent has the highest number of state parties to the Rome Statute, recently several criticisms and allegations have been leveled against ICC interventions in Africa. AU and African higher official apparently call for non-cooperation of ICC. They believed that, ICC is unfairly targeting Africa and Africans, and it is a neo-colonial plaything and that Africa has been a place to experiment with their ideas. Such allegation begs question that is really the ICC unfairly focusing Africa and Africans? Therefore, it needs evaluating these accusations by considering the whole process and function of ICC. Accordingly, when we evaluate the allegations, it seems too far from trues. Because, on one hand, many of allegation and criticism itself is not representative of African peoples rather it is the allegation of some African political leaders of authoritarian nature of power those who fears the prosecution for the commission of mass crime and atrocities in their respective countries. On other hand the composition of the court by itself is Africans. It is a global court with historically strong African support. It would not be the court it is today without the valuable input, involvement and support of the majority of African states. The court seeks justice for victims of grave crimes, including African victims; it needs the ongoing support of African government, civil society and public in order to achieve justice. It was intended to be a credible, independent judicial body, able to adjudicate the most serious of international crimes fairly and impartially, where National judicial systems have failed and fight against impunity all over the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document