A dissertação trata da existência do foro por prerrogativa de função, previsto na Constituição Brasileira de 1988, para assegurar a algumas autoridades o direito de terem seus crimes comuns e os de responsabilidade julgados nas mais altas Cortes de Justiça do Poder Judiciário. De forma mais específica, examina-se a concessão de foro especial para os membros do Congresso Nacional perante o Supremo Tribunal Federal, medida introduzida no sistema constitucional brasileiro a partir da Emenda Constitucional n. 1/1969 e que tem recebido severas críticas da opinião pública, sobretudo com o aumento do número de deputados e senadores envolvidos em processos criminais. A questão desperta inúmeras polêmicas e alimenta constantes debates na política, na sociedade e na doutrina. Isso porque, diferente dos cidadãos comuns, é conferido um tratamento diferenciado para alguns ocupantes de funções públicas, como uma espécie de garantia, tendo em vista a sua importância no cenário estatal. Argumenta-se, porém, que o foro especial seria um privilégio, o que violaria os princípios da isonomia e do juiz natural, razão pela qual não poderia subsistir no atual desenho do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Contribuem para aumentar as divergências as tentativas de se ampliar o rol de indivíduos que dele gozam e as hipóteses em que deve ser aplicado. Neste sentido, a partir do enfoque de questões relativas à jurisdição, com a demonstração dos critérios utilizados para se realizar a fixação da competência no direito brasileiro, incluindo-se a prerrogativa de função, é apresentado o instituto das imunidades parlamentares, destacando suas origens, bem como a evolução histórica do foro especial nas Constituições brasileiras e a experiência de outros países. Em seguida, discutem-se as atuais divergências sobre o foro constitucional, incluindo o cancelamento do verbete n. 394, da Súmula do Supremo Tribunal Federal e as propostas legislativas existentes sobre a matéria. Aborda-se, também, a questão da improbidade administrativa, incluindo-se as controvérsias sobre a natureza jurídica e competência para julgamento de agentes políticos. Por fim, disponibilizam-se alguns dados relativos ao processo e julgamento de parlamentares perante o Supremo Tribunal Federal e expõem-se possíveis soluções alternativas para a questão. / The dissertation deals with the existence of the original jurisdiction, foreseen in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, to assure to some authorities the right of being judged by the countrys highest Courts. More specifically, it examines the privilege given to Congressmen to be judged by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, introduced via a constitutional amendment in 1969, and which has, at late, received severe public criticism, due to the increase in politicians who are suspected of criminal involvement. Such privilege has not only drawn public criticism, but has also given rise to a number of academic debates, not to mention questionings from the political arena. The reason is that, different from common citizens, a special treatment is granted to some occupants of public offices, as a sort of guarantee, considering their importance in the state scene. It is argued that special jurisdiction is not more than a privilege, violating the basic tenets of isonomy and justice. And as such, it should not prosper within the Brazilian legal system. The recent attempts to include other individuals within the jurisdiction of the countrys high courts have only contributed to increase the divergences. In this direction, from the approach of questions of jurisdiction, with the demonstration of the usual criterions known in Brazil, including the special jurisdiction, is presented the institute of parliamentary immunity, detaching its origins, as well as the historical evolution of the phenomenon in the Brazilians Constitutions and the experience of other countries. After that, the current divergences about the subject are argued, including the cancellation of the Supreme Federal Courts Abridgement n. 394 and the related legislative proposals. Administrative improbity is also approached, including the controversies on its legal nature and the venue jurisdiction to judge political agents. In closing, some data is provided about the process and judgment of parliamentarians on Supreme Federal Court and exposed possible alternative solutions to the questions arisen.

A dissertação trata da existência do foro por prerrogativa de função, previsto na Constituição Brasileira de 1988, para assegurar a algumas autoridades o direito de terem seus crimes comuns e os de responsabilidade julgados nas mais altas Cortes de Justiça do Poder Judiciário. De forma mais específica, examina-se a concessão de foro especial para os membros do Congresso Nacional perante o Supremo Tribunal Federal, medida introduzida no sistema constitucional brasileiro a partir da Emenda Constitucional n. 1/1969 e que tem recebido severas críticas da opinião pública, sobretudo com o aumento do número de deputados e senadores envolvidos em processos criminais. A questão desperta inúmeras polêmicas e alimenta constantes debates na política, na sociedade e na doutrina. Isso porque, diferente dos cidadãos comuns, é conferido um tratamento diferenciado para alguns ocupantes de funções públicas, como uma espécie de garantia, tendo em vista a sua importância no cenário estatal. Argumenta-se, porém, que o foro especial seria um privilégio, o que violaria os princípios da isonomia e do juiz natural, razão pela qual não poderia subsistir no atual desenho do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Contribuem para aumentar as divergências as tentativas de se ampliar o rol de indivíduos que dele gozam e as hipóteses em que deve ser aplicado. Neste sentido, a partir do enfoque de questões relativas à jurisdição, com a demonstração dos critérios utilizados para se realizar a fixação da competência no direito brasileiro, incluindo-se a prerrogativa de função, é apresentado o instituto das imunidades parlamentares, destacando suas origens, bem como a evolução histórica do foro especial nas Constituições brasileiras e a experiência de outros países. Em seguida, discutem-se as atuais divergências sobre o foro constitucional, incluindo o cancelamento do verbete n. 394, da Súmula do Supremo Tribunal Federal e as propostas legislativas existentes sobre a matéria. Aborda-se, também, a questão da improbidade administrativa, incluindo-se as controvérsias sobre a natureza jurídica e competência para julgamento de agentes políticos. Por fim, disponibilizam-se alguns dados relativos ao processo e julgamento de parlamentares perante o Supremo Tribunal Federal e expõem-se possíveis soluções alternativas para a questão. / The dissertation deals with the existence of the original jurisdiction, foreseen in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, to assure to some authorities the right of being judged by the countrys highest Courts. More specifically, it examines the privilege given to Congressmen to be judged by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court, introduced via a constitutional amendment in 1969, and which has, at late, received severe public criticism, due to the increase in politicians who are suspected of criminal involvement. Such privilege has not only drawn public criticism, but has also given rise to a number of academic debates, not to mention questionings from the political arena. The reason is that, different from common citizens, a special treatment is granted to some occupants of public offices, as a sort of guarantee, considering their importance in the state scene. It is argued that special jurisdiction is not more than a privilege, violating the basic tenets of isonomy and justice. And as such, it should not prosper within the Brazilian legal system. The recent attempts to include other individuals within the jurisdiction of the countrys high courts have only contributed to increase the divergences. In this direction, from the approach of questions of jurisdiction, with the demonstration of the usual criterions known in Brazil, including the special jurisdiction, is presented the institute of parliamentary immunity, detaching its origins, as well as the historical evolution of the phenomenon in the Brazilians Constitutions and the experience of other countries. After that, the current divergences about the subject are argued, including the cancellation of the Supreme Federal Courts Abridgement n. 394 and the related legislative proposals. Administrative improbity is also approached, including the controversies on its legal nature and the venue jurisdiction to judge political agents. In closing, some data is provided about the process and judgment of parliamentarians on Supreme Federal Court and exposed possible alternative solutions to the questions arisen.

A lentidão processual é um indicador de ineficiência da justiça e também uma de suas causas. A normal duração dos processos cíveis está comprometida por uma série de fatores, tais como o aumento da litigiosidade, a falta de infraestrutura dos órgãos judiciários e insuficiente utilização das novas tecnologias da informação, a deficiente formação dos juízes e advogados e, particularmente, a falta de efetiva repressão às más condutas dos sujeitos processuais. Este trabalho tem por escopo identificar as condutas processuais irregulares causadoras ou contributivas para a morosidade e traçar parâmetros objetivos para sua repressão. Para tanto, foram estudados os principais aspectos relativos ao comportamento abusivo dos sujeitos processuais que violam o direito à razoável duração do processo e trazem prejuízos processuais e extraprocessuais, tanto às partes envolvidas no litígio, quanto à dignidade da jurisdição. O trabalho busca demonstrar, portanto, que ética, compromisso e cooperação são peçaschave na solução do intrincado problema da lentidão processual e que, para resolvê-lo, não são necessárias alterações legislativas: a adequada aplicação dos atuais mecanismos repressores das condutas iníquas, à luz desses valores, é suficiente para a garantia da razoável duração do processo. / The slowness of judicial procedures is a symptom of the inefficiency of justice and is also one of its causes. The usual duration of civil proceedings is jeopardized by a number of factors, such as the increase in litigiousness, the lack of infrastructure of the judiciary bodies and insufficient use of the new information technologies, the deficient educational level of judges and lawyers, and particularly the absence of an effective repression to abusive conducts of the parties to a lawsuit. The scope of this paper is to identify the improper procedural practices that give rise or contribute to the slowness of justice and to establish objective parameters to repress it. For such purpose, a study was performed on the main aspects related to abusive practices carried out by the litigants, which infringe the right to a reasonable length of proceedings, and bring about an adverse effect in court and out of court, both to the parties involved in the litigation and to the dignity of the jurisdiction. Therefore, the paper searches to demonstrate that ethics, commitment, and cooperation are key components to the solution of the intricate problem of procedural slowness, and that no legislative amendments are required to solve it: in light of such values, the proper application of the existing repressive mechanisms for inequitable conducts is sufficient to guarantee the reasonable length of court proceedings.

Submitted by Neusa Fagundes (neusa.fagundes@unioeste.br) on 2018-03-05T13:19:12Z No. of bitstreams: 2 AnaMaria_Tarini2017.pdf: 1529484 bytes, checksum: 46fc5275c3ccd1f2027fba15df85e30f (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-05T13:19:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 AnaMaria_Tarini2017.pdf: 1529484 bytes, checksum: 46fc5275c3ccd1f2027fba15df85e30f (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-12-15 / Dealing with discourses means getting into an unstable arena, but also of regularities, sometimes, for rupture, others, for reiteration of what is established. The feminist discourse was a discursive event that broke up many chains and pointed possibilities for men and women to have the same social, cultural and economic rights; however the patriarchal discourse still rules the Brazilian society and the sexual violence, that woman is the main victim, is not over, the State’s agents have tried to deal with the problem: but we try to understand how this is done. Therefore, the theme of this research is the discursive practice of/in the juridical about women victim of sexual violence. In this study, I understand as question of research the discourses that blame the woman for their own rapes, trying to reveal the discursive memory and the meaning effects that it produces. Based in the discourse analysis’ theoretical scope, especially in studies by Pêcheux (1977, 1990, 2006, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d), Henry (1992, 2010 e 2013), Orlandi (1988, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011), Althusser (2001), and Foucault (2001, 2006 e 2015), I asked: a) how the paraphrasal repetition that is in the criminal prosecutions of female sexual violence are constituted; b) why, in the prosecution related to sexual crimes committed against women, they have to prove they’re suitable. To write the dissertation, I established as purpose to analyze the discursive practice revealed in judicial prosecution from 2012 to 2014, already sentenced and judged, in Foz do Iguaçu, verifying how the cases of sexual violence (rapes, sexual abuses), happened in different conditions, are treated. This analysis is made by tracing reflections about the discourses of women and feminism histories, crucially regarding the situation of sexual violence, aiming to understand the materiality and the constitution of the discursive practice of judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers that take charge of justice and the warranty of the women’s constitutional and individual rights and verifying if this practice of/in the corpus breaks with or reiterates the socially established memory about the woman and if there is or not a rupture with the already-said, the “ever-already-there” and the “has-always-been-like-this”. The corpus is composed by four criminal prosecution showed in cutouts divided in SDs, with views to the treatment and to the analysis. The juridical discursive practice in focus is analyzed based in the categories of the discourse analysis, but without disregarding the feminist studies and the ideological questions that pass through the Law. As results, I consider that changes, such as in law, are happening. But I realize that the subjects of/to the juridical discourse submit themselves not only to the legislation through which we’re all reigned, but are also submitted to a patriarchal culture in which they are inserted, because don’t break up with this memory about to be a woman; thereby, what can be seen in the discursive practice about sexual violence crimes against women, there is not properly rupture. / Lidar com discursos é entrar numa arena de instabilidades, mas também de regularidades, às vezes de ruptura, outras de reiteração ou aderência ao que está estabelecido. O discurso feminista é um acontecimento discursivo que rompeu com inúmeras amarras, apontou possibilidades de homens e mulheres terem os mesmos direitos sociais, culturais e econômicos, contudo o discurso patriarcal ainda impera na sociedade brasileira e a violência sexual, da qual a mulher é a principal vítima, não cessou, e os agentes do Estado têm lidado com o problema, a questão é entender como. Por isso, o tema desta pesquisa é a prática discursiva do/no jurídico a respeito das mulheres vítimas de violência sexual. Elejo como objeto de pesquisa os discursos que culpam as mulheres pelos estupros sofridos. Busco entender as memórias discursivas presentes e os efeitos de sentido que produzem. Pautada no escopo teórico da AD, especialmente nos textos de Pêcheux (1977, 1990, 2006, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d), Henry (1992, 2010 e 2013), Orlandi (1988, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011), Althusser (2001) e Foucault (2001, 2006 e 2015) questiono: a) Como se constitui o discurso (a repetição parafrástica) que se verifica nos processos judiciais de violência sexual contra mulheres? b) o por que nos processos relativos a casos de crimes sexuais cometidos contra mulheres, elas precisam provar que são idôneas. Para este trabalho, estabeleci como objetivo analisar a prática discursiva em processos judiciais de 2012 a 2014, já sentenciados e julgados, na cidade de Foz do Iguaçu, verificando como são tratados os casos de violência sexual (estupros e abusos sexuais) acontecidos em diferentes condições de produção, e traço reflexões acerca dos discursos da história das mulheres e do feminismo, essencialmente no que se refere à situação de violência sexual, visando compreender a materialidade e a constituição da prática discursiva de juízes, promotores e advogados de defesa que se incumbem da justiça e da garantia dos direitos individuais e constitucionais e verificando se a prática discursiva do/no corpus rompe ou reitera a memória socialmente estabelecida sobre a mulher e se há ou não ruptura com o já-dito, o sempre-já-aí e o "sempre-foi-assim". O corpus é composto de quatro processos judiciais e está disposto em recortes, divididos em SDs consecutivas, para efetuar o tratamento e a análise. A prática discursiva jurídica é analisada à luz das categorias da AD, mas sem desconsiderar os estudos do feminismo e questões ideológicas presentes no Direito. Como resultados, considero que, estão ocorrendo mudanças, como na legislação, no entanto noto que os sujeitos do/ao discurso jurídico estão sujeitos não apenas à legislação pela qual todos nós somos regidos e nos pautamos, mas também estão sujeitos à cultura patriarcal de que fazem parte, pois não conseguem romper com essa memória sobre o ser mulher, o que está visível é que na prática discursiva jurídica a respeito de crimes de violência sexual contra as mulheres praticamente não há ruptura.

Submitted by Simone Maisonave (simonemaisonave@hotmail.com) on 2016-12-01T11:10:23Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Jaqueline Buttow Signorini_Dissertacao.pdf: 2167466 bytes, checksum: 44ac1f22763740668a0805ab6aefcc10 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-12-01T11:10:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Jaqueline Buttow Signorini_Dissertacao.pdf: 2167466 bytes, checksum: 44ac1f22763740668a0805ab6aefcc10 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-11-18 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / Autonomia e liberdade sindical, sua relação com o Estado, a contribuição sindical e a contribuição assistencial chamam a atenção de estudiosos do sindicalismo. Nas discussões ligadas às questões democráticas, é importante analisar os limites da intervenção estatal e as reações do sindicalismo. Esta dissertação procura analisar a liberdade e autonomia sindicais sob perspectivas político/jurídicas, objetivamente, como o Ministério Público do Trabalho (MPT) atua nesta relação na cidade de Pelotas. Há poucos trabalhos relacionados à analise das reações sindicais à ingerência do MPT. O objetivo é compreender as relações na busca por autonomia e liberdade sindical nos sindicatos de Pelotas e as formas de reação desses sindicatos ao papel desempenhado pelo MPT no que tange ao imposto sindical e à contribuição assistencial. A hipótese de que se parte é a de que a atuação do Ministério Público do Trabalho fere a liberdade e autonomia sindicais e que a frágil reação dos sindicatos se deve ao peso da herança coorporativa, que permanece relativamente estável, impedindo sindicatos de reivindicarem liberdade e autonomia efetivas, embora a Constituição Federal de 1988 garanta a livre criação de sindicatos sem autorização prévia e sem interferência no seu funcionamento. A metodologia utilizada é qualitativa, utilizando análise documental, como a legislação sobre imposto sindical, contribuição assistencial, liberdade e autonomia sindical, atas de reuniões, notificações, ofícios, processos judiciais e processos administrativos, documentos disponibilizados pelos atores envolvidos através de meio eletrônico e realização de entrevistas semiestruturadas com os atores envolvidos. A dissertação propõe-se a contribuir para um debate mais amplo sobre autonomia e liberdade sindical no Brasil. / Union freedom and autonomy, how it relates with the state and labor union contribution, call for the attention of labor unionism scholars. On the discussions connected to democratic issues it is important to analyze the limits to state intervention and the reactions to labor unionism. This dissertation seeks to analyze union freedom and autonomy under political/legal perspectives, in an objective manner, how the Prosecution Office for Labor, through the creation of the Union Freedom National Coordination, acts upon this relation in the city of Pelotas (RS, Brazil). Works related to the analysis of union reaction to interference from the Prosecution Office for Labor are scarce. This dissertation’s goal is to understand the relations on the quest for union freedom and autonomy in unions in Pelotas and the ways these unions react to the role played by the Prosecution Office for Labor regarding union taxes and assistance contribution. The hypothesis we start from is that the current action from the Prosecution Office for Labor harms the union freedom and autonomy, and that the unions’ fragile reaction is due to the weight of corporative heritage, which remains relatively stable, preventing unions from claiming true autonomy, although the Federal Constitution of 1988 predicts the free creation of unions without previous authorization or interference in its functioning. The methodology employed is qualitative, using documental analysis, such as the laws on union taxes, assistance contribution, union freedom and autonomy, minutes of meeting, legal and administrative actions, internal documents made available by the involved agents through electronic means and semi structured interviews with the involved agents.

LL.M. (International Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract.

No description available.

"Rwanda was largely destroyed in 1994. Among an endless host of problems, highly complex questions and dilemmas of justice, unity, and reconciliation haunt Rwanda to this day. A basic question confronting Rwanda is how to deal with the legacy of the conflict that culminated in the genocide of the Tutsi and in the massacres of Hutu opponents of the genocide. The UN set up an International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania, and Rwanda has its own courts. In both cases, the process of trying accused genocidaires is long, laborious, and frustrating. Only eight convictions have been handed down in Arusha after five years of work, while in Rwanda only some 3,000 cases have been disposed of. At least 120,000 detainees are in prisons around the country, the vast majority of whom are accused of participation in the genocide. At the present rate it is estimated that it will take anywhere between two and four centuries to try all those in detention. The Rwandese government has developed a new procedure called “gacaca,” lower-level tribunals that attempt to blend traditional and contemporary mechanisms to expedite the justice process in a way that promotes reconciliation. The impact of gacaca remains to be seen, and as a process, it certainly needs an evaluation or, at least, an attempt to evaluate its possible contribution to the perplexing questions of justice, unity and social reconstruction in the aftermath of genocide. This paper mainly aims to analyse the draft legislation on the gacaca jurisdictions. Further, this essay attempts to examine the impact of criminal trials in the aftermath of mass violence and genocide. Although conventional wisdom holds that criminal trials promote several goals, including uncovering the truth; avoiding collective accountability by individualising guilt; breaking cycle of impunity; deterring future war crimes; providing closure for the victims and fostering democratic institutions, little is known about the role that judicial intervention have in rebuilding societies. The present essay deals only with criminal trials. By definition, these are focused on the perpetrators of abuses and their allies. Although not examined in the essay, a comprehensive and holistic approach to dealing with a legacy of past atrocities should also include range of victim-focused efforts, such as programs for compensation and rehabilitation, the establishment of memorials, and the organisation of appropriate commemorations. The main sources of this study are textbooks, articles from journals and official documents of national and international bodies. Since this essay aims at evaluating the gacaca proposals, a great deal of attention is paid to the terms of the draft legislation. It is certainly premature to make an in-depth assessment of a draft law and the merits and flaws of the legal institution it is designed to set up. Only gradually and over a period of time can the gacaca become effective and credible. Further research aimed at gathering data through interviews, field observations, participant observation, study and analysis of the implementation can also illuminate experience in ways that analysis of published sources do not. A thorough and sound appraisal of this new institution must therefore wait some time. I shall nevertheless attempt in this essay to set out some initial and tentative comments on some of the salient traits of the future gacaca tribunals. This paper makes a preliminary “human rights impact assessment” of the implementation of the draft law establishing “gacaca jurisdictions”. The potential role of the new institution in rebuilding the Rwandese society is also discussed. Considering the many complex issues which still surround the process of justice in Rwanda six years after the genocide, as well as the continuing challenge to the judicial system in terms of the inadequacy of resources for dealing with such an enormous caseload, recommendations to help the process follow the analysis of the gacaca proposals (Chapter Three). To end impunity, it is necessary to respond in accordance with human rights law to the genocide and mass killings. Therefore, the starting point for our evaluation of the gacaca proposals will be an analysis of the proposals in human rights law. Does human rights law impose any affirmative duties to punish genocide and other mass killings that occurred in Rwanda? In addition, for the “gacaca jurisdictions” to be effective, they should not be viewed in isolation, as their performance will depend to a large extent on whether other judicial mechanisms and institutions are functioning properly. The relationships between the gacaca jurisdiction and other mechanisms are thus reviewed. In particular, the process of setting up the gacaca jurisdictions should include an evaluation of the genocide trials which have taken place to date both at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and in the domestic courts and apply the lessons learnt (Chapter Two). An evaluation of the potential contribution of the use of gacaca courts needs to be put into the broader context of the conflict in Rwanda. Thus, an analysis of the conflict in Rwanda is necessary to grasp the challenges facing the questions of justice and social reconstruction in the aftermath of genocide in Rwanda (Chapter One)." -- Introduction. / Prepared under the supervision of Professor Jeremy Sarkin, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2000. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / 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

The systematic variation in arrests of former wartime leaders (including political/military leaders and those with commanding positions from both sides of conflict among other high-level wartime actors) in post-conflict countries have rarely been recognized and studied. Building on past literature that interlinks transitional justice with domestic politics, this study argues that the variation in arrests of former wartime leaders can be explained by elections and electoral manipulation theory. Amid the costs and opportunities associated with elections in general, I argue that incumbents also opt for arrests of former wartime leaders as an electoral manipulation strategy to eliminate political opponents and consolidate power in the guise of justice and, at the same time, minimize the costs associated with electoral manipulation tools. Hence, I hypothesize the arrest of former wartime leaders likely to be during the election period (the pre-election period, election day, and immediate post-election period). All else equal, the statistical test does not support the hypothesis while the complementary evidence from post-conflict Nepal and Sri Lanka suggest that presence (or absence) of justice in post-conflict countries is largely shaped by domestic politics. Similarly, few arrests in Sri Lanka and Nepal offer mild support to the theoretical expectations while few other arrests in Sri Lanka suggest that some arrests during the hypothesized election period are coincidental. This further questions the explanatory power of the suggested theory and findings.