This thesis examines the status of amnesties and the duty to prosecute gross and systematic human rights violations in international law. The thesis begins by distinguishing amnesty from other related concepts, such as impunity, pardon and statutes of limitations and so on. Unlike these related concepts, amnesty aims to address major social or political crises in society, such as to resolve an armed conflict, allow the return of political refugees or bring about peaceful political transition. Amnesty is linked to the duty to prosecute, because it is so often in direct conflict with international law norms and standards on the duty to prosecute and to compensate victims of human rights violations. Before the First World War, amnesty was a well-established customary practice. Even where a peace treaty was silent on the mater, amnesty was implied. Compensation was also part of the regime of peace treaties, but not followed as consistently as amnesty. This practice changed dramatically after the First and Second World Wars, because, in a break with the past, the victors did not consider themselves to be on the same level as the vanquished. This resulted in the abolition of the traditional practice of granting amnesty and the demand rather that those responsible for aggression be prosecuted and compelled to pay compensation, as was the case with Germany. Since 1948, with the adoption of the United Nations' Charter, and other international human rights treaties, the power of states to grant amnesty gradually became constrained by the obligation to prosecute perpetrators of gross human rights violations and to pay compensation to the victims of war crimes. Nevertheless, this phenomenon did not put an end to the practice of states granting amnesty for gross human rights violations. Internal armed conflicts during and after the end of the Cold War, with no victors and no vanquished, made amnesty an inevitable option. A considerable number of states continue to utilise amnesty as a device for peace and reconciliation, and they have granted amnesty for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. In customary international law, there is a gap between the actual state practice and the existence of the customary norm creating a duty to prosecute. As a result, the status of the so-called "palatable amnesties" (à la South Africa), often granted as part of a truth and reconciliation process, still remains unclear in international law. This is further exacerbated by the inconsistent practice of the United Nations as the main depository and sponsor of human rights instruments. South Africa and Sierra Leone are used as case studies to illustrate this inconsistency in both state and UN practice on the status of amnesties in international law. As a result, the study proposes a balanced approach model, which is an attempt to strike a balance between accountability, political transformation and social stability in transitional democracies. The balanced approach model proceeds from the premise that the international criminal justice system is not flawless and, therefore, it is important to acknowledge its limitations, such as the lack of enforcement agencies, difficulties in the collection of reliable evidence and a lack of resources to prosecute. In terms of the model, consideration is given to (i) the need to respect the legitimacy of the political process that gives rise to the granting of amnesty; (ii) the amnesty must be proportional to the crimes committed and must be rationally connected to the aims of achieving peace and national reconciliation, the interests of justice, compensation for victims; and finally (iii) the general commitment of the state that grants amnesty to respect international law obligations, which includes the implementation of international obligations as part of municipal law and treaty monitoring obligations as preconditions for the amnesty to pass muster in the balanced approach model. In conclusion, the study proposes model Policy Guidelines on Amnesties Granted for Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations in International Law for the Assembly of States of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to take note of, and to commend to states and international courts and tribunals, leaving its content to be taken up in the normal processes of the application and development of international law. The status of the Guidelines is that of a code of conduct or guide to practice. In that sense, the Guidelines do not have the character of a binding legal instrument and will serve as the basis for the development of sound principles of international law on amnesties. / Constitutional and International Law / L.LD

in English The theme of this dissertation is the subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Offences such as aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, sometimes called the "core crimes", are the most serious crimes ever indentified under international law. These crimes do not violate only some particular rights, but they threaten the whole international community, peace, security and well-being of the world. Therefore it is essential to have a precise legal definition of these grave crimes and to establish an effective judicial mechanism for prosecution of the most dangerous criminals. However, it is not easy to find general consent on these matters among the international community. There is not much space for internationalisation in the field of criminal law, which was traditionally considered an important part of national sovereignty. Thus the path towards establishment of the ICC, which is the first permanent international criminal judicial body ever, was extremely difficult, as was definition of the four core crimes falling within its jurisdiction. This thesis scrutinises the concrete provisions of the ICC Statute, the "Rome Statute", which constitute substantive law by defining the crime of genocide (art. 6), crimes against humanity (art. 7), war...

„We need to defend culture – source of resilience and resistance, of belonging and identity – as a wellspring to rebuild and restore normality in societies in crisis” – mit diesem Aufruf forderte die ehemalige UNESCO-Generaldirektorin Irina Bokova eine Reaktion der internationalen Gemeinschaft auf die Schändungen materieller und immaterieller Kulturgüter durch die Terrormiliz IS im Irak und Syrien. So besteht Palmyra – Symbol kultureller Vielfalt und interkulturellen Dialogs – zwar in seinen Grundfesten fort, die Zerstörung von Statuen, Vandalismus an prähistorischen Tempeln und Sprengungen des Triumphbogens lassen Experten jedoch schlussfolgern: „Palmyra remains, but its legacy is forever transformed“. Die Zerstörung materiellen Kulturerbes bildet längst nicht alle Schandtaten der Terrormiliz ab; gleichzeitig trachtet sie nach der Zerstörung der distinkten Kultur ganzer Volksgruppen. In ihren Angriffen auf die Jesiden blieb es nicht bei der Zerstörung heiliger Schreine. Auch immaterielle Ausdrucksformen von Kultur sind Gegenstand systematischer Angriffe. Durch Zerstörung materieller und immaterieller Kulturgüter zeichnete der IS verantwortlich für „unprecedented cultural eradication“. Irina Bokova folgerte, „we are witnessing what can be described as ‚cultural cleansing‘ on an unprecedented scale.“ Eine wichtige Rolle in der Bestrebung, die Kulturen der Welt vor solchen Gräueltaten zu schützen, kommt der strafrechtlichen Ahndung letzterer zu. Vor diesem Hintergrund hält der Terminus kultureller Genozid Einzug in die Debatten. Die vorliegende Abhandlung führt zunächst in das Konzept kulturellen Genozids ein und analysiert seinen Status nach geltendem Recht. Daraufhin erfolgt eine Analyse der neueren Völkerrechtspraxis, um festzustellen, inwiefern im Hinblick auf die rechtliche Behandlung des kulturellen Genozids Reformbedarf besteht. Sodann werden Reformmöglichkeiten vorgestellt und bewertet. Am Ende dieses Beitrages soll ein Überblick über den Mehrwert eines potenziellen Straftatbestands kulturellen Genozids und zukünftige Schritte in Reaktion auf die derzeit von Extremisten begangenen Verbrechen an Kultur stehen.

Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. M.

This thesis examines the status of amnesties and the duty to prosecute gross and systematic human rights violations in international law. The thesis begins by distinguishing amnesty from other related concepts, such as impunity, pardon and statutes of limitations and so on. Unlike these related concepts, amnesty aims to address major social or political crises in society, such as to resolve an armed conflict, allow the return of political refugees or bring about peaceful political transition. Amnesty is linked to the duty to prosecute, because it is so often in direct conflict with international law norms and standards on the duty to prosecute and to compensate victims of human rights violations. Before the First World War, amnesty was a well-established customary practice. Even where a peace treaty was silent on the mater, amnesty was implied. Compensation was also part of the regime of peace treaties, but not followed as consistently as amnesty. This practice changed dramatically after the First and Second World Wars, because, in a break with the past, the victors did not consider themselves to be on the same level as the vanquished. This resulted in the abolition of the traditional practice of granting amnesty and the demand rather that those responsible for aggression be prosecuted and compelled to pay compensation, as was the case with Germany. Since 1948, with the adoption of the United Nations' Charter, and other international human rights treaties, the power of states to grant amnesty gradually became constrained by the obligation to prosecute perpetrators of gross human rights violations and to pay compensation to the victims of war crimes. Nevertheless, this phenomenon did not put an end to the practice of states granting amnesty for gross human rights violations. Internal armed conflicts during and after the end of the Cold War, with no victors and no vanquished, made amnesty an inevitable option. A considerable number of states continue to utilise amnesty as a device for peace and reconciliation, and they have granted amnesty for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. In customary international law, there is a gap between the actual state practice and the existence of the customary norm creating a duty to prosecute. As a result, the status of the so-called "palatable amnesties" (à la South Africa), often granted as part of a truth and reconciliation process, still remains unclear in international law. This is further exacerbated by the inconsistent practice of the United Nations as the main depository and sponsor of human rights instruments. South Africa and Sierra Leone are used as case studies to illustrate this inconsistency in both state and UN practice on the status of amnesties in international law. As a result, the study proposes a balanced approach model, which is an attempt to strike a balance between accountability, political transformation and social stability in transitional democracies. The balanced approach model proceeds from the premise that the international criminal justice system is not flawless and, therefore, it is important to acknowledge its limitations, such as the lack of enforcement agencies, difficulties in the collection of reliable evidence and a lack of resources to prosecute. In terms of the model, consideration is given to (i) the need to respect the legitimacy of the political process that gives rise to the granting of amnesty; (ii) the amnesty must be proportional to the crimes committed and must be rationally connected to the aims of achieving peace and national reconciliation, the interests of justice, compensation for victims; and finally (iii) the general commitment of the state that grants amnesty to respect international law obligations, which includes the implementation of international obligations as part of municipal law and treaty monitoring obligations as preconditions for the amnesty to pass muster in the balanced approach model. In conclusion, the study proposes model Policy Guidelines on Amnesties Granted for Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations in International Law for the Assembly of States of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to take note of, and to commend to states and international courts and tribunals, leaving its content to be taken up in the normal processes of the application and development of international law. The status of the Guidelines is that of a code of conduct or guide to practice. In that sense, the Guidelines do not have the character of a binding legal instrument and will serve as the basis for the development of sound principles of international law on amnesties. / Constitutional and International Law / L.LD

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:26:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-06-22Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:54:40Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 volz_mb_me_fran.pdf: 1042789 bytes, checksum: 27834998d1188adf6946bf0bc52272bc (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / O objetivo desta pesquisa reside na análise dos motivos que explicam a criação do Tribunal Penal Internacional ter ocorrido apenas na década de 1990, precisamente em 1998, sendo que desde o início do século XX já existiam propostas para instauração de uma organização internacional semelhante a essa. Para tanto, são analisados, inicialmente, as origens do processo de internacionalização dos direitos humanos e os antecedentes, tanto institucionais quanto sob a perspectiva dos princípios jurídicos, do Tribunal Penal Internacional. Considerando que as Nações Unidas só voltaram a deliberar sobre este projeto após o término da Guerra Fria, são investigados, também, de que maneira o encerramento desse peculiar conflito, bem como as suas repercussões no âmbito das relações internacionais, influenciaram na retomada e no desenvolvimento das negociações sobre a proposta do Tribunal. Esclarecidos esses motivos, procede-se a uma análise sobre as três fases que compuseram o processo político para a elaboração do Estatuto do Tribunal e culminaram na instauração dessa corte internacional: a inicial, no âmbito da Comissão de Direito Internacional; a intermediária, coordenada pelo Comitê Preparatório, e a final, ocorrida na Conferência de Roma. Encerra-se esta pesquisa discutindo-se os aspectos mais atuais acerca do Tribunal Penal Internacional e os limites da sua criação / This research intends to explain the reasons why the International Criminal Court establishment took place just in the nineties, precisely in 1998, but since the begin of the twentieth century there were already proposals for the creation of a international organization like this. In order to accomplish this objective, are analyzed, initially, the origins of the human rights internalization process, and the background, both institutional and from the perspective of legal principals, to the International Criminal Court. Considering that the United Nations just come back to deliberate about this project after the end of the Cold War, are investigated, furthermore, how the end of this particular conflict, including its consequences in the international relations, influenced the resume and the development of the negotiations about the Court proposal. Clarified these reasons, the research is developed with the analysis of the three phases that made up the political process for the elaboration of the Court Statute, and that culminated in the establishment of the International Criminal Court: the first within the International Law Commission, the intermediate, coordinated by the Preparatory Committee, and the final, held at the Rome Conference. This research is concluded by discussing the most current aspects regarding the International Criminal Court and the limits of its creation

This dissertation intends to analyse the practice of amnesties in the context of grave human rights violations using northern Uganda as a case study. It also examines its consistency with the obligation upon states to protect human rights through the prosecution of perpetrators of the said violations. It will, accordingly, analyse the implications of the complementary mandate of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to national jurisdictions. Furthermore, the author also explores the tension which results from national amnesties and the principle of international criminal responsibility, a principle that the ICC has the mandate to enforce. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007. / A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Dr Ben Kiromba Twinomugisha of the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

„We need to defend culture – source of resilience and resistance, of belonging and identity – as a wellspring to rebuild and restore normality in societies in crisis” – mit diesem Aufruf forderte die ehemalige UNESCO-Generaldirektorin Irina Bokova eine Reaktion der internationalen Gemeinschaft auf die Schändungen materieller und immaterieller Kulturgüter durch die Terrormiliz IS im Irak und Syrien. So besteht Palmyra – Symbol kultureller Vielfalt und interkulturellen Dialogs – zwar in seinen Grundfesten fort, die Zerstörung von Statuen, Vandalismus an prähistorischen Tempeln und Sprengungen des Triumphbogens lassen Experten jedoch schlussfolgern: „Palmyra remains, but its legacy is forever transformed“. Die Zerstörung materiellen Kulturerbes bildet längst nicht alle Schandtaten der Terrormiliz ab; gleichzeitig trachtet sie nach der Zerstörung der distinkten Kultur ganzer Volksgruppen. In ihren Angriffen auf die Jesiden blieb es nicht bei der Zerstörung heiliger Schreine. Auch immaterielle Ausdrucksformen von Kultur sind Gegenstand systematischer Angriffe. Durch Zerstörung materieller und immaterieller Kulturgüter zeichnete der IS verantwortlich für „unprecedented cultural eradication“. Irina Bokova folgerte, „we are witnessing what can be described as ‚cultural cleansing‘ on an unprecedented scale.“ Eine wichtige Rolle in der Bestrebung, die Kulturen der Welt vor solchen Gräueltaten zu schützen, kommt der strafrechtlichen Ahndung letzterer zu. Vor diesem Hintergrund hält der Terminus kultureller Genozid Einzug in die Debatten. Die vorliegende Abhandlung führt zunächst in das Konzept kulturellen Genozids ein und analysiert seinen Status nach geltendem Recht. Daraufhin erfolgt eine Analyse der neueren Völkerrechtspraxis, um festzustellen, inwiefern im Hinblick auf die rechtliche Behandlung des kulturellen Genozids Reformbedarf besteht. Sodann werden Reformmöglichkeiten vorgestellt und bewertet. Am Ende dieses Beitrages soll ein Überblick über den Mehrwert eines potenziellen Straftatbestands kulturellen Genozids und zukünftige Schritte in Reaktion auf die derzeit von Extremisten begangenen Verbrechen an Kultur stehen.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis is a reflection of the provisions of the Rome Statute in relation to the most fundamental condition for the effective functioning of the Court – the cooperation of states. It broadly examines the challenges experienced by the Court with respect to application of Part IX such as whether non-State Parties to the Rome Statute can, notwithstanding their right not to be party, be compelled to cooperate with the Court owing to the customary international law obligation for all States to repress, find and punish persons alleged to have committed the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court (war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide). This is particularly challenging where such persons are nationals of non-States Parties. The various meanings of international cooperation in criminal matters is discussed with reference to and distinguished from the cooperation regime of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. For States Parties to the Rome Statute, the thesis evaluates the measure of their inability or unwillingness to genuinely prosecute persons alleged to have committed crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court within the context of the principle of complementarity. It seeks to address, where such inability or unwillingness has been determined by the Court, how effective the cooperation between the States Parties and the Court could best serve the interests of justice. The thesis answers the question on what extent the principle of complementarity influences the cooperation of States with the Court, whether or not these States are party to the Rome Statute. The concept of positive complementarity that establishes a measure of cooperation between the Court and the national criminal jurisdictions is further explored in the context of the Court’s capacity to strengthen local ownership of the enforcement of international criminal justice. A nuanced discussion on the practice of the Court with respect to the right of persons before the Court is developed. The rights of an accused in different phases of Court proceedings and the rights of victims and affected communities of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction are considered at length and in the light of recently-established principles regulating the Court’s treatment of these individuals. These persons are key interlocutors in the international criminal justice system and have shifted the traditional focus of international law predominantly from states to individuals and bring about a different kind of relationship between States as a collective and their treatment of these individuals arising from obligations to the Rome Statute. Finally the thesis interrogates the enforcement mechanisms under the Rome Statute. Unlike States, the Court does not have an enforcement entity such as a Police Force that would arrest persons accused of committing crimes within its jurisdiction, conduct searches and seizures or compel witnesses to appear before the Court. Yet, the Court must critically assess its practice of enforcing sentences that it imposes on convicted persons and in its contribution to restorative justice, the enforcement of reparations orders in collaboration with other Rome Statute entities such as the Trust Fund for Victims. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis is 'n weerspieëling van die bepalings van die Statuut van Rome in verhouding tot die mees fundamentele voorwaarde vir die effektiewe funksionering van die Hof - die samewerking van State. Dit ondersoek breedweg die uitdagings wat deur die Hof ervaar word met betrekking tot die toepassing van Deel IX soos byvoorbeeld of State wat nie partye is tot die Statuut van Rome, nieteenstaande hul reg om nie deel te wees nie, verplig kan word om saam te werk met die Hof weens die internasionale gewoontereg verpligting om alle persone wat na bewering misdade gepleeg het binne die jurisdiksie van die Hof (oorlogsmisdade, misdade teen die mensdom en volksmoord) te verhinder, vind en straf. Dit is veral uitdagend waar sodanige persone burgers is van State wat nie partye is nie. Die verskillende betekenisse van die internasionale samewerking in kriminele sake word bespreek met verwysing na, en onderskei van, die samewerkende stelsel van die Internasionale Kriminele Tribunale vir Rwanda en die voormalige Joego-Slawië. Vir State wat partye is tot die Statuut van Rome, evalueer die tesis - in die konteks van die beginsel van komplementariteit - die mate van hul onvermoë, of ongewilligheid om werklik persone te vervolg wat na bewering misdade gepleeg het binne die jurisdiksie van die Hof. Dit poog om aan te spreek, waar so 'n onvermoë of ongewilligheid bepaal is deur die Hof, hoe effektiewe samewerking tussen State wat partye is en die Hof, die belange van geregtigheid die beste kan dien. Die tesis beantwoord die vraag op watter mate die beginsel van komplementariteit die samewerking van die State met die Hof beïnvloed, ongeag of hierdie State partye is tot die Statuut van Rome. Die konsep van positiewe komplementariteit wat samewerking vestig tussen die Hof en die nasionale jurisdiksies aangaande kriminele sake word verder ondersoek in die konteks van die Hof se vermoë om plaaslike eienaarskap in die handhawing van die internasionale kriminele regstelsel te versterk. 'n Genuanseerde bespreking op die praktyk van die Hof met betrekking tot die reg van persone voor die Hof word ontwikkel. Die regte van 'n beskuldigde in die verskillende fases van die hof verrigtinge en die regte van slagoffers en geaffekteerde gemeenskappe van misdade binne die hof se jurisdiksie word in diepte bespreek in die lig van die onlangs gevestigde beginsels wat die Hof se behandeling van hierdie individue reguleer. Hierdie persone is sleutel gespreksgenote in die internasionale kriminele regstelsel en het die tradisionele fokus verskuif van die internasionale reg van State na individue, en bring oor 'n ander soort verhouding tussen State as 'n kollektiewe en hulle behandeling van hierdie individue as gevolg van hul verpligtinge aan die Statuut van Rome. Ten slotte bevraagteken die tesis die handhawings meganismes onder die Statuut van Rome. In teenstelling met State, het die Hof nie 'n handhawing entiteit soos 'n Polisiemag wat persone kon arresteer wat beskuldig word van misdade binne sy jurisdiksie, deursoek en beslagleggings uitvoer of persone dwing om as getuies te verskyn voor die Hof nie. Tog, moet die Hof sy praktyk van uitvoering van vonnisse wat dit oplê op veroordeelde persone en in sy bydrae tot herstellende geregtigheid die handhawing van herstelling in samewerking met ander Statuut van Rome entiteite soos die Trust Fonds vir Slagoffers krities assesseer.

L'incorporation du Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale dans l’ordre juridique d'un État partie représente pour celui-ci un énorme engagement envers la justice, la protection et la garantie des droits fondamentaux de la personne humaine. La situation est particulièrement préoccupante dans le cas de la Colombie où la violation de ces droits fondamentaux a historiquement été notoire au cours du conflit armé interne qui sévit encore dans le pays aujourd’hui. Du fait de la ratification du Statut de Rome par l'État colombien, ce pays a le devoir de privilégier la recherche de la vérité, de la justice, de la réparation intégrale et les garanties de non-répétition pour les victimes du conflit armé. Ce traité international vise à empêcher la mise en place de règles consacrant l'impunité et empêchant de connaître la vérité de faits, comme ce qui a longtemps été le cas dans ce pays et qui a entraîné la prolongation du conflit pendant tant d'années. L'adoption du Statut de Rome par l'État colombien a produit différents effets juridiques dans le droit interne colombien. Certains de ces effets peuvent être observés dans les lois adoptées par le Congrès de la République ainsi que dans les arrêts de la Cour constitutionnelle et de la Cour suprême de justice où s'expriment les obligations internationales de l'État, rattachées au respect du système universel des droits de l'homme. Ce mémoire vise ainsi entre autres à exposer de quelle manière les dispositions sur les amnisties et la Loi Justice et paix rendent inefficace la mise en œuvre législative du Statut de Rome en Colombie. / The incorporation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court into the domestic legal system of a State Party constitutes an enormous commitment to justice and the protection and guarantee of fundamental human rights. This situation is especially interesting in Colombia, where the violation of human rights has been historically well-known during the internal armed conflict in which the country has gone through for several years now. Since its ratification of the Rome Statute, Colombia has a duty to search for truth and justice, as well as providing for integral repair and guarantees of non-repetition for the victims of the armed conflict. The treaty does not allow the creation of rules that allow for impunity and prevent knowledge of the truth which can explain that the conflict has persisted for so many years. The implementation of the Rome Statute by Colombia adjustment has produced different legal effects into its legal system. Some of these effects can be observed in certain laws adopted by the Congress of the Republic and in the Constitutional’s Court and the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgements. These laws and judgments have relied on the international obligations of the country contained in human rights treaties and the Statute of Rome. This master thesis exposes, among other things, how the provisions of laws relating to amnesties and the Law Justice and peace make the Rome Statute inefficient in Colombia.