At the outset, it has to be noticed that crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and international law will achieve its goals only if those responsible for crimes will be brought to justice. The principle of individual criminal responsibility of Heads’ of State for crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes and torture (elaborated in the Nuremberg Charter) is part of customary international law. The principle is embodied in the resolutions of the UN General Assembly – Principles of Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Judgment of the Tribunal (1950); international treaties – Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), Geneva Conventions (1949), Convention against Torture and Other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1984), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998); other international instruments – UN Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996), Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1993) (also clarified in the proceedings brought before the former Yugoslavian leader S. Milosevic) and Rwanda (1994); decisions of national courts – the UK House of Lords decisions in the Pinochet case (1998 -1999); extradition requests sent and honoured by executive officials – Belgium international arrest warrant for H. Habre (2005) and African Union requests; state proposals for international... [to full text]

This article discusses, in a general manner, the most important transitional justice mechanisms at which victims of serious human rights violations, constitutive of international crimes such as crimes against humanity, can participate. The analysis is mainly conducted in the light of international law areas such as international human rights law and international criminal law. Transitional justice mechanisms are examined under two categories: transitional justice mechanisms that are mainly of a retributive nature and those that are mainly of a restorative kind. In each category, possibilities, advantages, challenges and limitations faced by the victims of serious human rights violations/international crimes are examined. Some concluding remarks are provided. / El presente artículo presenta de manera general los más importantes mecanismos de justicia transicional, a través de los cuales pueden participar las víctimas de serias violaciones de derechos humanos que pueden constituir crímenes internacionales, tales como crímenes de lesa humanidad. El análisis se desarrolla, principalmente, desde la óptica de áreas del derecho internacional, tales como el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y el derecho penal internacional. Los mecanismos de justicia transicional son considerados en dos categorías: mecanismos de justicia transicional de tipo, principalmente, retributivo y aquellos que son de tipo, principalmente, restaurativo. En cada una de las dos categorías, se examinan las posibilidades, ventajas, desafíos y limitaciones que las víctimas de serias violaciones de derechos humanos/crímenes internacionales pueden encontrar. El artículo concluye con reflexiones finales.

Magister Legum - LLM (Criminal Justice and Procedure) / In June 2014, the AU adopted a Protocol which included in its annexe a Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples' Rights. The Protocol proposes to expand the jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples' Rights (ACJHPR) by vesting it with criminal jurisdiction. The ACJHPR will comprise of three sections, namely, a General Affairs Section, a Human and Peoples' Rights Section and an International Criminal Law Section. The Malabo Protocol, therefore, confers the proposed ACJHPR with criminal jurisdiction over international and transnational crimes. Although the Malabo Protocol and its Statute are not yet in force, the fact that in Africa there is a possibility of having the 'African Criminal Court (ACC)' deserves a critical analysis.

La quête d’une réponse à l’impunité des crimes internationaux a connu un pas de géant avec l’adoption par un grand nombre d’États du Statut de Rome créant la Cour pénale internationale. Néanmoins, toujours jaloux de leur souveraineté, ces États ont fait de cette dernière une juridiction complémentaire. Cette Cour n’agit que lorsque des crimes relevant de sa compétence, commis par de hautes autorités, ne font pas l’objet d’enquêtes ou poursuites sérieuses sur le plan national. Mais aussi, dans une approche proactive de sa complémentarité, elle est appelée à catalyser l’organisation des enquêtes ou poursuites au niveau national en assistant ou en encourageant les instances nationales. Cette complémentarité de la CPI par rapport aux systèmes judiciaires nationaux constitue le seul moyen par lequel cette cour lutte contre l’impunité des crimes internationaux. Cependant, au lieu de constituer un remède à l’impunité, la mise en œuvre de ce principe et la manière dont il est libellé dans le Statut de Rome, en serait plutôt, dans la plupart des cas, la source. Pour étayer ces propos, cette étude met en exergue la politisation et l’instrumentalisation qui entachent la mise en œuvre de ce principe ainsi que l’exploitation insuffisante de la complémentarité positive. Après avoir interrogé l’évolution de la justice pénale internationale pour dégager son caractère complémentaire, ce mémoire décortique le sens et la portée du principe de complémentarité. Il vérifie ensuite notre hypothèse par l’analyse de la mise en œuvre de ce principe dans les situations en Côte d’Ivoire et en Libye. Au final, il suggère la révision de la base juridique de ce principe et l’optimisation de la complémentarité positive comme véritable rempart contre l’impunité des crimes internationaux les plus graves. / Many States have ratified the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). In response to the issue of international crimes which usually go unpunished, this represents a giant step forward. However, by exercising much of their sovereignty, these States have made the ICC a supplementary jurisdiction which only acts when crimes within its jurisdiction committed by high authorities, are not subject to serious investigations or prosecutions at the national levels. As a proactive approach to its complementarity, it is required to catalyze the organization of investigations or prosecutions at the national levels by assisting or encouraging local authorities. This complementarity of the ICC to the national judiciary systems constitutes the only way this court has available to fight against international crimes impunity. However, the implementation of this principle and the way it is worded in the Rome Statute, constitute, in most cases, the source of impunity rather than its remedy. In order to do so, this study first highlights the politicization and instrumentalisation that plagued the implementation of this principle and the insufficient exploration of positive complementarity. It secondly gives an overview of the evolution of international criminal justice stressing its complementary nature. The meaning and scope of the principle of complementarity will be then scrutinized which will allow for testing our hypothesis; taking Ivory Coast’s and Libya’s contexts as cases in point. In light of the results, suggestions in terms of revisions of the legal basis of this principle and the optimization of positive complementarity as a true weapon against impunity of such unheard of crimes are discussed.

This thesis attempts to address perennial concerns, mostly raised in some quarters in Africa, pertaining to the development of the complementarity regime established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It grapples with a very important question, whether the principle of complementarity, embodied in article 17 of the Rome Statute, was formulated and is being applied by the ICC in a manner that upholds the ideals and theories upon which the regime was founded. The principle of complementarity is designed to mediate the imperatives of State sovereignty and a legitimate international criminal justice system. Essentially, complementarity gives States latitude to try genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression nationally, with the ICC only intervening where States are either unable or unwilling to prosecute genuinely. Africa constitutes the biggest regional block of membership to the Rome Statute, however, over the years; support for the ICC on the African continent has waned. It has been argued in some quarters that the ICC is anti-African and that it has interpreted and applied complementarity in a manner that diminishes State sovereignty. The thesis argues that this tension may also be due to textual deficiencies inherent within the Rome Statute, in the provisions that embody this principle. It therefore examines complementarity from a theoretical perspective to provide a comprehensive account of the system contemplated by the drafters of the Rome Statute. In this regard, the thesis argues for expansion of States’ ability at the national level to deal with international crimes without compromising international criminal justice processes or threatening State sovereignty. This is suggested as a way of relieving the tension that has characterised the relationship between African States and the ICC. The thesis further sketches out some of the complexities inherent in the modalities through which the Court may exercise its complementary jurisdiction, particularly within the African continent, given that legal systems in most African countries are particularly weak. It thus dissects the provisions that outline the principle of complementarity in tandem with the Court’s interpretation and application of complementarity in practice. Furthermore, through an exploratory survey of the referral of the Situation in Uganda, and the ICC Prosecutor’s proprio motu investigation of the Situation in Kenya, the thesis illustrates how a positive approach to complementarity can help establish a healthy cooperative synergy between the ICC and States, thereby promoting a functional expeditious criminal justice system. This will go a long way towards assuaging State’s fears that the ICC merely pays lip service to complementarity and arbitrarily supersedes national jurisdiction.

On 18 November 2010, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) held that legal reforms adopted by Senegal in 2007 to incorporate international crimes into the national Penal Code to enable its domestic courts to prosecute Hissene Habre for, among others, crimes against humanity committed in Chad twenty years before, violated the principle of legality, specifically the principle against non-retroactivity of criminal law. The court held that such crimes could be prosecuted only by a hybrid tribunal with the jurisdiction to try Habre for the international crimes based on general principles of law common to the community of nations. Some scholars opined that the ECOWAS decision was wrong, stating that the crimes in question were criminalised already under international law and that Senegal‟s legal reforms simply served jurisdictional purposes. Given that, as a core component of the principle of legality, the role of non-retroactivity is to prohibit the creation of new crimes and their application to past conduct, the opinions of such scholars may hold true. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2011. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / nf2012 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

This study deals with two aspects of international law. The first is ‘immunity of state officials’ and the second is ‘prosecution of international crimes.’ Immunity is discussed in the context of international crimes. The study focuses on Africa because African state officials have become subjects of international criminal justice before international courts and various national courts both in Europe and Africa. It presents a new contribution to international criminal justice in Africa by examining the practice on prosecution of international crimes in eleven African states: South Africa; Kenya; Senegal; Ethiopia; Burundi; Rwanda; DRC; Congo; Niger; Burkina Faso and Uganda. The study concludes that immunity of state officials has been outlawed in these states thereby rendering state officials amenable to criminal prosecution for international crimes. The thesis argues that although immunity is founded under customary international law, it does not prevail over international law jus cogens on the prosecution of international crimes because such jus cogens trumps immunity. It is argued that, committing international crimes cannot qualify as acts performed in official capacity for the purpose of upholding immunity of state officials. In principle, customary international law outlaws functional immunity in respect of international crimes. Hence, in relation to international crimes, state officials cannot benefit from immunity from prosecution or subpoenas. Further, the study criticises the African Union’s opposition to the prosecutions before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It argues that however strong it may be, such opposition is unfounded in international law and is motivated by African solidarity to weaken the role of the ICC in Africa. It concludes that the decisions taken by the African Union not to cooperate with the ICC are geared towards breaching international obligations on cooperation with the ICC. The study calls upon African states to respect their obligations under the Rome Statute and customary international law. It recommends that African states should cooperate with the ICC in the investigations and prosecution of persons responsible for international crimes in Africa. At international level, the study reveals the conflicting jurisprudence of international courts on subpoenas against state officials. It argues that, state officials are not immune from being subpoenaed to testify or adduce evidence before international courts. It contends that issuing subpoenas to state officials ensures fairness and equality of arms in the prosecution of international crimes. It recommends that international courts should treat state officials equally regarding prosecution and subpoenas. It further recommends that African states should respect their obligations arising from the Rome Statute and that, immunity should not be used to develop a culture of impunity for international crimes committed in Africa. / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Centre for Human Rights / unrestricted

Because of its mandate and its enforcement powers, the ICC has been hailed as a major advance on the road towards individual accountability for the perpetration of the most heinous violations of human rights (international crimes) and thus as a major contribution to the prevention of such horrible crimes. However, with its limited resources in terms of human and financial means, the ICC will not be able to deal with all perpetrators of the crimes that come under its jurisdiction wherever such crimes are committed throughout the world. For this reason, in order to end impunity in the commission of international crimes, there will always be a need for combined efforts by the ICC and national courts. This reality is recognised by the Rome Statute which, in the preamble and article 1 of the Statute, provides that the jurisdiction of the ICC is “complementary” to national courts and that, therefore, States Parties retain the primary responsibility for the repression of international crimes. In legal literature, this is generally referred to as the “principle of complementarity” or the “complementarity regime of the Rome Statute”. In order to give effect to the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, South Africa passed the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (hereafter the Implementation Act); which determines the modalities of prosecuting perpetrators of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in South African courts. The Implementation Act also provides that South African courts will have jurisdiction over these crimes not only when they are committed on South African territory but also when they are committed outside the Republic, thus empowering South African courts to exercise “universal jurisdiction” over these three international crimes. This thesis examines the extent to which South African courts, acting under the complementarity regime of the Rome Statute are, or are not, allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. The study is based on two assumptions. First, it is assumed that since under the principle of complementarity South African courts are required to do the same job as the ICC, they should have the same powers as those States Parties gave to the ICC when they adopted the Rome Statute. Secondly, it is assumed that, although having the same mandate as the ICC in terms of the complementarity principle, South African courts are nonetheless domestic courts as opposed to the ICC which is an international court and that, accordingly, the international law principle of State sovereignty may impose limitations on their ability to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. In the light of the above assumptions, this study investigates three issues. Firstly, do South African courts have the same powers as the ICC has to disregard immunities of foreign States’ officials which, under international customary law, attach to their functions or status? Secondly, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to disregard amnesties granted by foreign States, either in the process of national reconciliation or as means to shield the criminals from prosecution by the ICC? Finally, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to retry a case which has already been tried in a foreign country but with the aim of shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or where, for example, the sentence imposed was too lenient in comparison with the gravity of the crime? / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Because of its mandate and its enforcement powers, the ICC has been hailed as a major advance on the road towards individual accountability for the perpetration of the most heinous violations of human rights (international crimes) and thus as a major contribution to the prevention of such horrible crimes. However, with its limited resources in terms of human and financial means, the ICC will not be able to deal with all perpetrators of the crimes that come under its jurisdiction wherever such crimes are committed throughout the world. For this reason, in order to end impunity in the commission of international crimes, there will always be a need for combined efforts by the ICC and national courts. This reality is recognised by the Rome Statute which, in the preamble and article 1 of the Statute, provides that the jurisdiction of the ICC is “complementary” to national courts and that, therefore, States Parties retain the primary responsibility for the repression of international crimes. In legal literature, this is generally referred to as the “principle of complementarity” or the “complementarity regime of the Rome Statute”. In order to give effect to the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, South Africa passed the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (hereafter the Implementation Act); which determines the modalities of prosecuting perpetrators of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in South African courts. The Implementation Act also provides that South African courts will have jurisdiction over these crimes not only when they are committed on South African territory but also when they are committed outside the Republic, thus empowering South African courts to exercise “universal jurisdiction” over these three international crimes. This thesis examines the extent to which South African courts, acting under the complementarity regime of the Rome Statute are, or are not, allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. The study is based on two assumptions. First, it is assumed that since under the principle of complementarity South African courts are required to do the same job as the ICC, they should have the same powers as those States Parties gave to the ICC when they adopted the Rome Statute. Secondly, it is assumed that, although having the same mandate as the ICC in terms of the complementarity principle, South African courts are nonetheless domestic courts as opposed to the ICC which is an international court and that, accordingly, the international law principle of State sovereignty may impose limitations on their ability to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. In the light of the above assumptions, this study investigates three issues. Firstly, do South African courts have the same powers as the ICC has to disregard immunities of foreign States’ officials which, under international customary law, attach to their functions or status? Secondly, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to disregard amnesties granted by foreign States, either in the process of national reconciliation or as means to shield the criminals from prosecution by the ICC? Finally, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to retry a case which has already been tried in a foreign country but with the aim of shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or where, for example, the sentence imposed was too lenient in comparison with the gravity of the crime? / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LLD