Aut Dedere Aut Judicare

Soler, Christopher

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_13

Christopher Soler²

690 Accesses

Abstract

Core crimes constitute violations of customary international law which allows for universal jurisdiction thereupon. Yet, we cannot extrapolate the applicability of the aut dedere aut judicare rule therefrom, nor can we extract it from their jus cogens status. This can be done by virtue of some determining factors. One of these relates to the qualitative gravity of core crimes, another emanates from an insufficient reach of international human rights law and a third can be triggered by acknowledging that non-prosecution could be tantamount to a threat to the peace. If a core crime is protected by a jus cogens norm and is subject to universal jurisdiction it is ipso facto, exercisable erga omnes. The execution of the aut dedere aut judicare rule in domestic courts may be equated to the assertion of universal jurisdiction by such domestic courts. The Hague formula favours a choice of the forum deprehensionis to either extradite or prosecute. It admits of two important variables, with the first variant being ‘the terrorism formula’ and the second off-shoot being ‘the drugs formula’. The fourth Geneva formula postulates the prioritization of prosecution over extradition. Limitations to the aut dedere aut judicare rule deriving from the principle of non-refoulement are also considered. The obligation to surrender which arises once the admissibility issue has been decided by the ICC, the Lockerbie incident (aut dedere aut transferre), gacaca tribunals, and the proposed EU corpus juris criminalis, may fall within the special category of alternatives to the aut dedere aut judicare formulae.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Paust et al. 2007, p. 12.
2.
Sometimes jurists use aut dedere aut judicare on the one hand, and aut dedere aut prosequi on the other hand, inter-changeably (Kolb 2004, p. 232). Kolb justifies his preference to the latter term, that is, aut dedere aut prosequi , since ‘the obligation of the State is not to try, but to submit the case to the competent authorities in view of prosecution’ (Kolb 2004, p. 263). Though Kolb ’s choice of words is valid, the former, that is, aut dedere aut judicare , shall be used for the purposes of my book.
3.
Obokata 2010, p. 46.
4.
ICTY Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaškić , Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of the Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997, Case No. IT-95-14-AR 108bis, para 29.
5.
Such rule acquires customary status, inter alia, when States sign and ratify a significant number of treaties containing the aut dedere aut judicare rule, hence articulating the belief that aut dedere aut judicare is a recognized and accepted rule which is conducive to the suppression of core crimes . The customary status of such rule has been originally propounded by Bassiouni (Bassiouni and Wise 1995, Preface, pp. 22–25; see pp. 43–48 thereof for a contrary view).
6.
ICTY Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v Anto Furundžija , 10 December 1998, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T.
7.
Reydams 2003, p. 115; Plachta 2001a, pp. 68–69.
8.
Bassiouni and Wise 1995, Preface, p. 24.
9.
ICJ , Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie , Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v USA ), Provisional Measures , Order of 14 April 1992, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, ICJ Rep. 1992, p. 114.
10.
ILC 2011, p. 318.
11.
Enache-Brown and Fried 1998, p. 632.
12.
African Commission, Various Communications vs Mauritania , 11 May 2000, Communications 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93, 164/97, 210/98, para 83, reproduced in p. 27 of the amicus brief on the Legality of Amnesties in International Law which is referred to in the appeal judgment in SCSL Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v Morris Kallon , Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction Lomé Accord Amnesty , 13 March 2004, SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E), and is also cited in Abass 2006, p. 355, n. 31.
13.
El Zeidy 2008, pp. 220–221.
14.
Knoops 2002, p. 313.
15.
See Bassiouni ’s main arguments in Bassiouni and Wise 1995, preface, p. 25.
16.
Cassese 1986, p. 275.
17.
Enache-Brown and Fried 1998, pp. 631–632.
18.
Benavides 2001, p. 19; Henzelin 2000; Bassiouni 2001, p. 81.
19.
Kolb 2004, p. 281. Jann Kleffner refers to treaty-based war crimes which attract universal jurisdiction in the form of aut dedere aut judicare (Kleffner 2008, p. 275).
20.
Boed 2000, pp. 311–312.
21.
van Steenberghe 2011, pp. 1091 and 1103.
22.
Article 7(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam enshrines aut dedere aut judicare when EU Member States fail to extradite their nationals.
23.
Plachta 2001a, p. 85.
24.
‘…la cui paternitá è attribuita a Ugo Grozio…’ (Dean et al. 2003, p. 518).
25.
Migliorino 1995, p. 970.
26.
A rule has been described as something which ‘typically lays down a fairly specific binding obligation , although it can also define a reasonably specific persuasive obligation ’ (Lepard 2010, p. 162).
27.
van Steenberghe 2011, p. 1091.
28.
Freestone 1997, p. 60.
29.
This means ‘role splitting ’ (Cassese 1990, p. 213).
30.
Scelle 1932, pp. 55–57.
31.
‘Traditional public international law posits that two elements are required to manifest the existence of a rule in customary international law : an established, consistent, and widespread State practice in the international realm, and opinio juris - that is, a conviction on the part of these States that they are bound to behave in such a way by an already existing rule’ {ICJ , Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark ; Federal Republic of Germany v The Netherlands [North Sea Continental Shelf cases ], 20 February 1969, ICJ Rep. 1969 p. 3, para 77}, cited in Boas et al. 2007, p. 21.
32.
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases , above n. 31, para 63.
33.
van Steenberghe 2011, p. 1095.
34.
Lepard states that ‘a principle is less specific and normally establishes a persuasive obligation to give some value or action great weight in decision-making. A general principle is a principle that is broad in scope and applies across a wide range of subject areas’ (Lepard 2010).
35.
The ICJ has occasionally drawn no difference between general principles of law and customary law, hence amalgamating both sources by coining the term ‘general international law’ {ICJ , Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v Spain ), 5 February 1970, ICJ Rep. 1970, p. 3, para 34, which articulated the concept of erga omnes obligations, and ICJ , United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v Iran) [Iranian Hostages Case ], 24 May 1980, ICJ Rep. 1980, p. 3, para 62}. This is not to say that these are one and the same thing. General principles of law include general principles both of international law and of national law, whereas customary international law must be looked for primarily at the actual practice and opinio juris of States .
36.
Bassiouni 1987, p. 22.
37.
I am not one of these.
38.
A norm is ‘a model or standard accepted (voluntarily or involuntarily) by society or other large group, against which society judges someone or something’ (Garner 2009, p. 1159).
39.
Wise 1993, p. 280.
40.
ICJ , Questions Relating to the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (Belgium v Senegal ), 20 July 2012, ICJ Rep. 2012, p. 422, para 100.
41.
Trapp 2011, p. 88.
42.
Nowak and McArthur 2008, p. 346
43.
Some jurists reach my conclusion in relation to a broader range of serious crimes (Steven 1999, pp. 425 and 440).
44.
Prosecution under contemporary international criminal law does not merely entail the possibility of the imposition of a sanction , such as, for example, a pecuniary sanction . It denotes the undertaking of criminal proceedings, a conclusion reached by analogical interpretation of the linguistic terminology used within the ICC Statute (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which refers to the French word ‘poursuites’, a term which is used in the context of criminal proceedings, to which it is inherently connected. This is substantiated by the Preamble of the ICC Statute itself which, whilst postulating, as a main objective of the ICC Statute , the effective prosecution of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, refers to the duty of every State to exercise criminal jurisdiction in its sixth paragraph.
45.
Orna Ben-Naftali states that the wide and diverse membership of most Conventions, relevant resolutions of the UNSC , the UNGA and other international bodies, international and domestic jurisprudence and strong scholarly support ‘further suggest that an obligation to exercise complementary universal jurisdiction over international crimes in general and over genocide in particular, enjoys customary status’ (Ben-Naftali 2009, pp. 50–51). Amongst others, ‘the offence of enforced disappearance carries individual criminal liability under customary international law ’ (Finucane 2010, p. 176).
46.
ICTY Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v Duško Tadić , Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, para 138. This judicial pronouncement dealt with crimes against humanity .
47.
See ICTY Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalić et al ., (Čelebići case ), 16 November 1998, Case No. IT-96-21-T, which concerned the crime of torture .
48.
ICTY Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v Goran Jelisić , 14 December 1999, Case No. IT-95-10-T, para 60, which categorically affirmed the customary international law and jus cogens nature of genocide .
49.
Kleffner 2008, p.15.
50.
Simbeye 2004, p. 37.
51.
Schlutter 2010, p. 2.
52.
See the back-cover of Schlutter 2010.
53.
Roberts 2001, p. 757.
54.
Although it recognised that ‘the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of customary international law , giving rise to a non-derogable obligation by each nation State to the entire international community ’, which obligation is ‘independent of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ’ [para 18 of the judgment], the Federal Court of Australia sitting in Canberra, in Nulyarimma v Thompson , dismissed the appeal on the basis of the lack of Australian legislation penalizing genocide . The Federal Court held that ‘it is not enough to say that, under international law, an international crime is punishable in a domestic tribunal even in the absence of a domestic law declaring that conduct to be punishable. If genocide is to be regarded as punishable in Australia , on the basis that it is an international crime, it must be shown that Australian law permits that result’ [Federal Court of Australia , Canberra, Nulyarimma v Thompson , 1 September 1999, [1999] FCA 1192, 165 ALR 621, para 22].
55.
In ICJ , Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (BiH v Serbia and Montenegro ), 26 February 2007, ICJ Rep. 2007, p. 43, para 442, the ICJ held that ‘an obligation to try the perpetrators of the Srebrenica massacre in Serbia ’s domestic courts cannot be deduced from Article VI’.
56.
This is implicit in the ICTRs recognition of the applicability of universal jurisdiction over the crime of genocide in ICTR Trial Chamber I, Prosecutor v Bernard Ntuyahaga , Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion to Withdraw the Indictment, 18 March 1999, Case No. ICTR -98-40-T.
57.
O’Keefe 2004, pp. 745–746; see also Adanan 2013, pp. 3–7.
58.
Hoover 2011, p. 6.
59.
In terms of Article 4a of the Dutch Criminal Code, this subsists where a foreign State requests The Netherlands to take over prosecution of a criminal case and a treaty exists between the foreign State and The Netherlands foreseeing prosecution in the case, Hoge Raad [Supreme Court], The Netherlands , Public Prosecutor v Joseph Mpambara , 21 October 2008, Case No. 09-750007-07.
60.
Pocar and Maystre 2010, p. 263.
61.
Jia 2012, p. 1315.
62.
de Hoogh 1996, p. 146.
63.
van der Wilt 2011, p. 1051.
64.
Cour d’Assises de Paris, 2ème Section [Second Chamber of the Criminal Court of Paris], Public Prosecutor v Pascal Senyamuhara Safari (alias Pascal Simbikangwa) , 14 March 2014, Case No. 13/0033. Simbikangwa was convicted of genocide and condemned to twenty-five years of imprisonment (see also Trouille 2016, p. 213, n. 89). His appeal was set to commence before the Assize Court of Bobigny on 24 October 2014 (Ntwari 2015) but instead commenced on 24 October 2016 (Ntwari 2015).
65.
Trouille 2016, p. 201.
66.
Trouille 2016, p. 202.
67.
Trouille 2016, pp. 202–209.
68.
Cour de Cassation , Chambre Criminelle [Court of Cassation, Criminal Division], France , Muhayimana , Judgment No. 810, 26 February 2014, 13-87888, also cited in Trouille 2016, p. 208, n. 69.
69.
Vandeginste 2012, p. 239.
70.
Hieramente 2011, p. 577.
71.
Ibid.
72.
Ibid.
73.
Ibid.
74.
Bassiouni 2001, p. 97, cited in Hieramente 2011, p. 577.
75.
For an argument on these lines, see Guénaël Mettraux who, with reference to the Hadžihasanović trial judgment [ICTY Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura , 15 March 2006, IT-01-47-T], appropriately held that ‘a proven failure to punish crimes may be relevant to establishing a failure to prevent subsequent criminal occurrences by the same group of subordinates’ (Mettraux 2009, p. 234).
76.
van der Wilt 2011, p. 1048.
77.
van der Wilt 2011, p. 1046.
78.
Vajda 2010, p. 330.
79.
Burens 2016, p. 79.
80.
Ambos 1999, pp. 353–354, cited in Ferdinandusse 2006, p. 202, n. 1195.
81.
van der Wilt 2011, p. 1049.
82.
Cour Suprême du Sénégal [Supreme Court, Senegal], Association des Victimes des Crimes et Répressions Politiques au Tchad (AVCRP) et al. v Hissène Habré, 20 March 2001, Case No. 14, p. 5.
83.
Nowak and McArthur 2008, p. 345.
84.
Barcelona Traction case , above n. 35, and ICJ , Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, 1951-ICJ Reports , p. 15, the latter case being cited in van der Wilt 2000, p. 328.
85.
Prosecutor v Furundžija, above n. 6, para 151.
86.
Ferdinandusse 2006, p. 183, n. 1084.
87.
van der Wilt 2000, p. 329.
88.
Tams 2005, p. 139.
89.
van der Wilt 2000, p. 329.
90.
Ibid.
91.
Ibid.
92.
However, the converse seems to be true, although Ragazzi is in disagreement (Ragazzi 1997, p. 194). A jus cogens norm would inevitably lead to an obligation erga omnes [IACmmHR, Michael Domingues v USA , 22 October 2002, Report No. 62/02, Case 12.285, para 49; see also Judge Bravo’s dissenting opinion in ECtHR, Sulaiman Al-Adsani v UK , 21 November 2001, Application No. 35763/97, Reports 2000-XI]. Some jurists have gone much further not only by subscribing to my view but by stating that ‘many contend that all customary human rights norms are erga omnes’ (Lepard 2010, p. 342).
93.
De Hoogh , analysing the Barcelona Traction Case , states that ‘the Court had the concept of jus cogens in mind when speaking of obligations erga omnes’, whereas Sinclair held, again with reference to the Barcelona Traction Case , that ‘obligations erga omnes are examples of what the Court would consider to be norms of jus cogens ’ (De Hoogh 1996, pp. 55–56; see also Sinclair 1984, p. 213, respectively).
94.
ICJ , Portugal v Australia [East Timor case ], 30 June 1995, ICJ Rep. 1995, p. 90, para 29.
95.
Ibid.
96.
de Marco 2007, p. 17 [There were no minorities which wanted to create a State, but nations. This is the consequence of self-determination. Peace within and amongst peoples is possible only if the right to self-determination is safeguarded: my translation].
97.
Kadelbach 2006, p. 28.
98.
McDougal and others contend that all rights stipulated within the UDHR are norms of jus cogens and that they constitute the heart of a global bill of rights (McDougal et al. 1980, p. 274).
99.
Schwobel 2011, p. 39.
100.
Judge Tanaka’s dissenting opinion in ICJ , Ethiopia v South Africa ; Liberia v South Africa [South West Africa cases ], 18 July 1966, ICJ Rep. 6.
101.
ECFI, Second Chamber (Extended Composition) Yasin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities [2005], 21 September 2005, T-315/01, paras 226–231.
102.
Examples of such principles are the principle of good faith and the requirement of reparation.
103.
For a contrary view, see Byers 1997, pp. 211–223.
104.
Posner 2009, p. 14.
105.
Posner 2009, p. 5.
106.
Posner 2009, p. 14.
107.
Rau 2003, p. 214, cited in Krings 2012, p. 761, n. 67.
108.
Krings 2012, p. 762.
109.
Krings 2012, pp. 762–763.
110.
Ibid.
111.
The twelfth legal provision of the ICC Statute , above n. 44, seems to imply, without prejudice to the exercise of universal jurisdiction , that the forum which ought to be given priority should be either the territorial State or the State whose nationals are allegedly involved in the core crime in question. This is also the prevailing position under customary international law (van der Wilt 2011, pp. 1047–1049).
112.
Oberste Gerichtshof [Supreme Court], Vienna, Austria, Public Prosecutor v Cvjetković, Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal Upholding Jurisdiction, 13 July 1994, 150s99/94. The trial judgment was delivered by Salzburg Court [Landesgericht {Trial Court}, Salzburg, Austria Public Prosecutor v Cvjetković, Acquittal, 31 May 1995, 150s99/94].
113.
Bundesgerichtshof [German Federal Supreme Court ], Public Prosecutor v Nikola Jorgić , 30 April 1999, 2 BvR 1290/99.
114.
[Supreme Court], Israel , Attorney-General of Israel v Adolf Eichmann , 29 May 1962, Criminal Appeal 336/61, and Schabas 2013a, p. 667.
115.
Public Prosecutor v Nikola Jorgić , above n. 113, para 39.
116.
Bundesverfassungsgericht [Federal Constitutional Court , 4th Chamber of the Second Senate, Germany ], Public Prosecutor v Nikola Jorgić , 12 December 2000, 2 BvR 1290/99.
117.
Audiencia Nacional [Criminal Chamber, Plenary Session] Spain , Unión Progresista de Fiscales de España et al. v. Pinochet , 5 November 1998 (see also Brody and Ratner 2000, pp. 95–107).
118.
Audiencia Nacional , Spain , Rigoberta Menchu Tum et al. v Ríos Montt et al . (Guatemala Genocide case ), 13 December 2000, 331/99.
119.
This term, used by the Audiencia Nacional , means ‘subsidiarity ’.
120.
van der Wilt 2011, abstract at p. 1043.
121.
Burens 2016, p. 77.
122.
Ryngaert 2005, pp. 600–601.
123.
He cites Belgian [Belgium’s Law Concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions (1878) as amended on 18 July 2001 (Loi Portant Modification de l’Article 12bis de la Loi du 17 avril 1878 Contenant le Titre Préliminaire du Code de Procedure Pénale) and on 7 August 2003 (Loi relative aux violations graves du droit international humanitaire )] and German legislation {para 153(f) of the Strafprozeẞordnung [Code of Criminal Procedure], Germany (1987)}, although in so far as the latter is concerned, such subsidiarity principle only applies to crimes under international humanitarian law (Ryngaert 2005, pp. 602–605).
124.
Ryngaert 2005, p. 601.
125.
Roht-Arriaza 2007, p. 117.
126.
Ryngaert 2005, p. 601.
127.
Kleffner 2003, p. 109, cited in Burens 2016, p. 79, n. 12.
128.
Ryngaert 2015, p. 69.
129.
Geneuss 2013, p. 179, cited by Burens 2016, p. 79, n. 14.
130.
Burens 2016, pp. 89–90.
131.
Kreẞ 2006, p. 584f, n. 111, cited in Burens 2016, p. 92, n. 68.
132.
Burens 2016, pp. 92–93.
133.
The State obligation to bring persons, regardless of their nationality , before its own courts constitutes a form of universal jurisdiction (Henzelin 2000, pp. 351–356). Vanessa Thalmann reaches the same conclusion although she does so predominantly with reference to the travaux préparatoires of the four Geneva Conventions (Thalmann 2009, p. 252).
134.
AI 2011, p. 9.
135.
For an objective analysis of the meaning of jus cogens , of the source of such norms and of their content, see Stephens 2004, pp. 247–255.
136.
Linderfalk 2009, p. 963.
137.
Barcelona Traction case , above n. 35, paras 33–34.
138.
Sergio Cotta firmly holds ‘dove c’è l’uomo c’è il diritto’. {where there is man, there is law: my translation}. He adds that ‘parallelamente, ma secondo un ordine roversciato, si riscontra che dove c’è il diritto, c’è l’uomo. Non soltanto per la banale constatazione estrinseca che l’uomo è l’oggetto, e il destinatario, delle prescrizioni giuridiche “poste’”; bensì per una ragione più profonda: per la oggettiva logica interna alla giuridicità’ {In parallel, but by reverse order, where there is law, there is man. This is not only due to the intrinsic conclusion that man is the object and beneficiary of the legal provisions, but for a more significant reason: this being the objective and internal logic of legality itself: my translation} (Cotta 1997, p. 111).
139.
Schlutter 2010, p. 3.
140.
Obokata 2010, p. 30.
141.
Ragazzi 1997, p. 72.
142.
Kadelbach 2006, p. 26.
143.
Randall 1988, p. 785.
144.
Bassiouni 1996, p. 72.
145.
Akhavan 2010, p. 1259.
146.
Universal jurisdiction is presumptively lawful provided that no prohibitive rule to the contrary has crystallized [PCIJ Twelfth Ordinary Session, Case of S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey ), 7 September 1927, PCIJ Series A, no. 10].
147.
‘The difference between a customary universal jurisdiction and a conventional one is merely one of range of application: one is valid erga omnes, the other possibly only inter partes ’ (Kolb 2004, p. 253).
148.
Lee 2010, p. 15.
149.
Claus Kreẞ suggests that the desire of the international community to defeat impunity may be ‘seen as a strong indication in favour of a customary State competence to exercise universal jurisdiction ’ (Kreẞ 2006, p. 573).
150.
Randall 1988, p. 821.
151.
Bassiouni 2008a, p. 483.
152.
See, inter alia, USA District Court, District of Columbia , USA v Fawaz Yunis, 12 February 1988, 681 F.Supp. 896 (D.D.C. 1988) Crim. A No. 87-0377; USA District Court for the Southern District of New York, USA v Ramzi Ahmed Yousef et al, 29 May 1996, 927 F.Supp. 673 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), S12 93 Cr.180 (KTD); USA Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, USA v Omar Mohammed Ali Rezaq , 6 February 1998, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998), 96-3127.
153.
Watson notes that it is indeed difficult to determine whether a government has, in fact, acquiesced to another government’s actions or practices (Watson 1993, p. 39).
154.
Zimmerman upholds that ‘no State has with regard to the exercise of universal jurisdiction concerning genocide , crimes against humanity or war crimes , so far acted as a persistent objector ’ (Zimmermann 2006, p. 353). One must also remember that the tacit acquiescence of a State is relevant for the purposes of such State practice .
155.
Morris 2001, p. 64.
156.
Ryngaert 2008a, p. 117.
157.
Poels 2005, p. 69.
158.
Philippe 2006, p. 379.
159.
The complexity surrounding universal jurisdiction is accentuated by its very nature. Alexander Poels, a supporter of universal jurisdiction in absentia , distinguishes between ‘unilateral universal jurisdiction ’, ‘delegated universal jurisdiction ’ and absolute universal jurisdiction ’ (Poels 2005, pp. 67–69). The latter term is defined as ‘universal jurisdiction which does not require the prosecuting State to have the alleged perpetrator in custody…’ (Kluwen 2017, p. 37)
160.
Tribunal of First Instance of Brussels , Aguilar Diaz et al. v Pinochet , Order, 6 November 1998.
161.
Aguilar Diaz et al. v Pinochet , above n. 160, para 288.
162.
Aguilar Diaz et al. v Pinochet , above n. 160, cited in Paust et al. 2007, p. 139.
163.
Article 2(c) of UNSC (2001) Resolution 1373 (2001), UN Doc. S/RES/1373.
164.
Kennedy 1987, cited in Hossain 2005, p. 79.
165.
Klein 1988, p. 351.
166.
D’Amato 1971, cited in Bassiouni 1996, p. 275, n. 17 and in Bassiouni 2008b, p. 14.
167.
Some jurists have gone a step further positing that in the future, international criminal law is most likely to be enforced neither by the ICC nor by States enjoying territorial jurisdiction but by third States willing to prosecute (Jeẞberger and Powell 2001, pp. 347 et. seq.; Sands 2003, pp. 40 et seq.).
168.
Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, R. Wijngaarde and R.A.L. Hoost v Desiré Delano Bouterse , Order of 20 November 2000, LJN: AA8395, cited in Nederlands Juristenblad, 2001, p. 51, reprinted in NYIL (2001) Vol. 32, pp. 278–279.
169.
Hoge Raad [Supreme Court], the Netherlands , Prosecutor-General of the Supreme Court v Desiré Delano Bouterse , 18 September 2001, LJN: AB1471, cited in NYIL (2001) Vol. 32, pp. 287–292.
170.
Luban 2004, p. 135.
171.
The term ‘best qualified’ is habitually used by Harmen van der Wilt in his writings (van der Wilt 2000, p. 334).
172.
IDI 2006, pp. 297–301, cited in Webb 2012, pp. 116–117, n. 16.
173.
Fletcher 2003, p. 582.
174.
Eser 2004, p. 976.
175.
Eser 2004, pp. 957–958 and 965.
176.
Eser 2004, pp. 961–963.
177.
Eser 2004, pp. 968–969.
178.
Eser 2004, p. 970.
179.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles, California, USA, The State v Sergeant Stacey Koon, Officer Theodore J. Briseno, Officer Timothy E. Wind, Officer Laurence Powell , (Rodney King case ), 29 April 1992. In this case police officers, after having been acquitted by a Californian jury of beating Rodney King nearly to death, were subsequently retried and convicted by a federal court (Herman 1994, cited in Eser 2004, pp. 968–969, n. 74).
180.
Eser 2004, p. 968.
181.
Eser 2004, p. 963.
182.
Fletcher 2003, p. 581.
183.
Currie 2007, p. 370.
184.
Rastan 2010, p. 123.
185.
Bassiouni 1996, p. 66.
186.
Randall 1988, p. 821.
187.
Ryngaert 2008a, p. 113.
188.
Ryngaert 2008a, p. 112.
189.
Ibid.
190.
Ryngaert 2008a, p. 113.
191.
Ryngaert 2008a, p. 115.
192.
Weeramantry 2004, p. 226.
193.
Lepard notes that the Bhgavad-Gita, the most revered book in Hinduism, refers to a united world, the Hebrew Scriptures speak of one Father and one God, Buddhists demand that human beings should care for others as a mother protects her child, Christianity requests the love of neighbours as oneself, whereas the Qur’an preaches that all of humanity was one community wherein the whole universe is the family of Allah (Lepard 2010, pp. 80–81). This rather spiritual, ethical note should not be construed so as to minimise the sharp differences prevailing between criminal justice systems. Professors of Stanford University, for example, held that ‘the People’s Republic of China provides an example of a society with a set of values very different from ours, where self-criticism is the norm and a privilege against self-incrimination would be unthinkable’ (Cohen and Danelski 1997, p. 815). Moreover, the revised version of the Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004), signed in Tunis on 22 May 2004, in Article 3(3), refers to Islamic Sharīʿah { } and other divine laws (Akram 2006, translated by Al-Midani and Cabanettes, p. 151).
194.
Shelton 2014, p. 172.
195.
Lepard 2010, p. 244.
196.
ICJ , Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) [Nicaragua Case], 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep. 1986, p. 14, para 190.
197.
ILC 2000, paras 386 et seq.
198.
ILC 1996, pp. 247–248. This has not stopped commentators from developing their own criteria for the establishment of peremptory norms (see the seven criteria postulated in Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009, pp. 361–362).
199.
See http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/world_population.htm. Accessed 12 January 2015
200.
Maritain 2012; Finnis 2011; Kramer 2003; Campbell 2004.
201.
Meron 1986, p. 4.
202.
UN Committee Against Torture 2004, paras 41–42, cited in Gondek 2009, p. 251.
203.
Bavarian High Court (Oberlandesgericht), Munich, Novislav Djajic case, 23 May 1997, 2 St 20/96, 51 Neue Jusistische Wochenschrisft (1998), p. 392.
204.
David Addington (former Counsel to, and Chief of Staff for, former Vice President Cheney); Jay S. Bybee (former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), U.S. Department of Justice {DOJ}); Douglas Feith (former under Secretary of Defence for Policy, Department of Defence {DOD}); Alberto R. Gonzales (former Counsel to former President George W. Bush, and former Attorney General of the USA ); William J. Haynes (former General Counsel, DOD); and John Yoo (former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC, DOJ).
205.
Juzgado Central de Instrucción No. 006 [Sixth Central Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings ], Madrid, Spain , Bush Six case , 13 April 2011.
206.
DomCLIC (2016) http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=36&level1=15248&level2=&level3=&textid=40126. Accessed 13 July 2016. A report revealed findings of torture in Guantanamo Bay detention facilities. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-torture-report-timeline-from-911-to-dianne-feinsteins-findings-9913178.html. Accessed 13 July 2016.
207.
USA Supreme Court, Lakhdar Boumediene et al. v Bush et al. , 12 June 2008, 06-1195. This case is also cited in para 20 of the report on admissibility following the petition of Algerian national Djamel Ameziane before the IACmmHR, which decision was the first time the IACmmHR accepted jurisdiction in a case relating to a Guantanamo detainee [IACmmHR, Djamel Ameziane v USA , Report No. 17/12 (Admissibility), 20 March 2012, P-900-8].
208.
Bakker 2006, p. 599.
209.
States are entitled to assert jurisdiction over all core crimes which are currently prosecutable before the ICC because these are defined in customary international law (Cryer et al. 2010, p. 51). This finds support in a decision of the Peruvian Constitutional Court [Tribunal Constitucional, Perú , Huaura, José Enrique Crousillat López Torres , 8 August 2008, Decision 01271-2008-PHC/TC, para 6].
210.
A regulation adopted by the UN Transitory Authority for Eastern Timor on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Serious Criminal Offences in East Timor establishes that universal jurisdiction means ‘jurisdiction irrespective of whether (a) the offence at issue was committed within the territory of East Timor; (b) the offence was committed by an East Timorese citizen ; (c) the victim of the offence was an East Timorese citizen ’ [UNTAET Regulation (2000) Doc. No. UNTAET/REG/2000/15].
211.
Lepard 2010, p. 24.
212.
Barcelona Traction case , above n. 35.
213.
Ganshof van der Meersch upholds that when the concept of ordre public is elevated to a level of mandatory requirement , it comes near to the concept of jus cogens in international law (van der Meersch 1977, p. 59).
214.
The custodial State is the State wherein a person who is alleged to have committed a core crime or who is the subject of an international arrest warrant is found.
215.
Owing to the lack of consensus as to whether the principles set out in the Lotus case continue to apply or not, it seems ‘impossible at this time to say whether or not universal jurisdiction in absentia is permissible or not as a matter of international law’ (Rabinovitch 2004, p. 529). Trials in absentia are still allowed in various States , including the Netherlands [Article 280 of the Wetboek van Strafvordering (1969) Code of Penal Procedure , the Netherlands ]. One must however clarify that for the Netherlands to exercise universal jurisdiction , it seems that the presence of the accused is necessary. This conclusion may be reached from the decision of the Public Prosecutor , subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal, not to investigate and prosecute Pinochet whose transitory presence in Amsterdam triggered a complaint by Chili Komitee Nederland [Public Prosecutor of Amsterdam, Chili Komitee Nederland v Pinochet , 6 June 1994; Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, Chili Komitee Nederland v Pinochet , 4 January 1995, published in the NYIL, Vol. 28, Asser Press, pp. 363–365]. Contrarily, however, Wijngaarde et al. v Bouterse [above n. 168], considering core crimes committed in Paramaribo , Surinam , throughout the night of the 8 and 9 December 1982, allowed universal jurisdiction in absentia {commonly referred to either as absolute or pure universal jurisdiction } only to be revoked by the Supreme Court which established that under the CAT the Netherlands enjoyed jurisdiction to prosecute either when the offender or victim is a Dutch citizen or else when the suspect is present in the Netherlands at the time of his arrest [Prosecutor-General of the Supreme Court v Desiré Delano Bouterse , above n. 169, para 8.5]. The matter seems to have been settled by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands , which, in Public Prosecutor v Habibullah Jalalzoy {Hoge Raad [Supreme Court], The Netherlands , Criminal Division, Public Prosecutor v Habibullah Jalalzoy , 8 July 2008, 07/10064 (LJN: BC7418)}, has outlined that ‘in view of the aut dedere aut judicare principle (either extradite or punish), the present case involves the exercise of secondary jurisdiction based on the universality principle . Moreover, the importance of the presence of the defendant in the territory of the prosecuting State is also emphasized in the Explanatory Memorandum to the International Crimes Act ’ [proviso to para 6.4 in DomCLIC (2017) http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/DomCLIC/Docs/NLP/Netherlands/Jalalzoy_Supreme_Court_08-07-2008_EN.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2017]. The presence requirement was ingrained by the ECtHR in Nikola Jorgić v Germany [ECtHR Fifth Section, Nikola Jorgić v Germany , 12 July 2007, Application No. 74613/01]. Another State, namely Italy , has convicted the so-called ‘Beast of Bolzano ’, Ukranian-born Michael Seifert , in absentia, and has subsequently obtained his extradition from Canada [DomCLIC (2016) http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=36&level1=15246&level2=15248&level3=&textid=40085. Accessed 23 October 2016, and The Telegraph (2008) Nazi Beast of Bolzano Faces Justice at 83. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578962/Nazi-Beast-of-Bolzano-faces-justice-at-83.html. Accessed 3 June 2016]. Reydams, referring to Pinochet in Denmark [Opinion of the Director of Public Prosecution of Denmark, Lee Urzúa et al. v Pinochet , 3 December 1998, 555/98], Javor in France {Cour de Cassation , Chambre Criminelle [Court of Cassation (Criminal Chamber)], France , Elvir Javor et al. contre X, Arrêt (Rejet du pourvoi), 26 March 1996, 95-81527}, Sharon [Chambre de mises en accusation [Pre-Trial Chamber of the Belgian Court of Appeal], Brussels, Samiha Abbas Hijazi et al. v Ariel Sharon , 26 June 2002] and Ndombasi [Court of Appeal, Brussels, Public Prosecutor v Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi et al ., 16 April 2002] in Belgium, notes that dicta in other States follow the same legal principles necessitating the presence of the accused (Reydams 2003, p. 178). Universal jurisdiction with presence is commonly referred to as ‘conditional universal jurisdiction ’ (Cryer et al. 2010, p. 52). The presence requirement is not of a global nature. By way of example, Article 8 of the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act (2000), New Zealand , Public Act 2000 No. 26, does not require presence.
216.
Poels 2005, p. 84.
217.
In their joint separate opinion, Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal argued that universal jurisdiction in absentia is permitted under international law provided that the following criteria are fulfilled:
1. the national State of the accused must be given an opportunity to act on the allegations;
2. the prosecution must be initiated by a prosecutor or juge d’instruction who is independent from control by the rest of the government;
3. special circumstances must exist to justify the assertion of jurisdiction, such as a request by the victims for the initiation of such a case; and
4. such jurisdiction must only be asserted over the most heinous crimes.
[ICJ , Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (DRC v Belgium ), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Christine van den Wyngaert, 14 February 2002, ICJ Rep. 2002, p. 3]. This contrasts with Cassese ’s conclusions which find comfort in the absence of a treaty which provides for a legal basis for universal jurisdiction in absentia (Cassese 2003, p. 589). The HRC has not outlawed trials which are not based upon universal jurisdiction in absentia , even when the death penalty is inflicted. It qualified this by stating that, at least, serious efforts to notify the accused must be undertaken by the State which prosecutes him in absentia [HRC , Daniel Monguya Mbenge v Zaire , 8 September 1977, Communication No. 16/1977, pp. 76–78]. All this infers that no customary international law rule exists necessitating the presence of the accused in trials. I am not a supporter of universal jurisdiction in absentia . This is not because of the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of a State, but because it could prejudice the right to a fair trial , it purportedly creates judicial chaos and would probably encourage arbitrary decisions by powerful States leading to a global community wherein ‘might is right’ instead of an international community which upholds the internationalization of the rule of law . It can also elicit forum-shopping . Cedric Ryngaert acknowledges that ‘the bystander State may stand accused of infringing upon the sovereignty of the territorial State , given the absence of any legitimizing link with the case’ (Ryngaert 2006, p. 54). Such legitimizing link (ein legitimierender Anknupfungspunkt) is eloquently explained in Vajda 2010, pp. 336–338, and also in Jeẞberger 2007, p. 215. Even States most supportive of universal jurisdiction such as Belgium, which had promulgated its War Crimes Act , (1999) Act Concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian law , necessitated the voluntary presence of the foreign suspect in Belgium for the purposes of prosecution [Public Prosecutor v Ndombasi et al., above n. 215]. A few months later, on 26 June 2002, in Samiha Abbas Hijazi et al. v Ariel Sharon , above n. 215, the Chambre de mises en accusation determined that the exercise of universal jurisdiction in absentia violates the Genocide Convention (1948) Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , Geneva Convention (1949a) Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva Convention (1949b) Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva Convention (1949c) Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva Convention (1949d) Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, the ECvHR (1950) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the principle of sovereign equality of States [vide Section A, para 9]. For a thorough examination of Belgium’s law on universal jurisdiction , see Langer 2011, pp. 26–32; see also above n. 123. Canada’s universal jurisdiction over genocide by means of the Act Respecting Genocide , Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes and to Implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, Canada (2000) Annual Statutes of Canada , Chap. 24, 29 June 2000, also necessitates the same pre-requisite, id est presence. Similarly, the Director of Public Prosecution of Denmark opined that Danish jurisdiction under Article 8(1)(5) of Straffeloven [Criminal Code], Denmark (1930) Law number 126, only subsists if the suspect is physically present in Denmark [Lee Urzúa et al. v Pinochet , above n. 215]. Other jurists, however, have taken a diametrically opposed standpoint (Roht-Arriaza 2006, pp. 207–213). This said, the EU transnational network of information-sharing is a laudable effort intended to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of core crimes [Decisions of the EU Council of Ministers {2002} OJ L 167/1-2 and {2003} OJ L 118/12-14]. Such networks are also conducive to the investigation and prosecution of transnational organised crimes , such as those committed by extensive criminal networks . These include the Italian mafias , La Cosa Nostra in the USA, this being an off-shoot of the Sicilian mafia (see Bassiouni and Vetere 1998, p. xxxi, n. 17), the Colombian and Mexican drug cartels , the Russian mafias and the Japanese Yakuza (Obokata 2010, p. 4 and 17). To the criminal networks based in Italy , besides the mafia mentioned here above, some of the actions of which were investigated and noted in a red diary/notebook which belonged to Paolo Borsellino and went missing after his assassination on 19 July 1992 (see Lo Bianco and Rizza 2007, pp. 197–202), one must add the Camorra , aptly analysed by Roberto Saviano (see Saviano 2006), the ‘Ndrangheta (see Ciconte 2015) and the Anonima Sarda (see Casalunga 2007).
218.
DRC v Belgium , above n. 217, para 42 cited in Mitchell 2009, para 20, n. 274.
219.
Ronald Sly and Beth van Schaack acknowledge that ‘those responsible of the most serious provisions of international criminal law today join pirates as “enemies of all humankind’” (Slye and van Schaack 2009, p. 73).
220.
Court of Appeal, The Hague, Public Prosecutor v Habibullah Jalalzoy , 29 January 2007, 09-751005-04 (LJN: AZ9366); and Court of Appeal, The Hague, Public Prosecutor v Hesamuddin Hesam , 29 January 2007, LJN AZ9365, cited in Ryngaert 2007, p. 15. Antonio Cassese infers that the aut dedere aut judicare rule is a principle of quasi-universal jurisdiction (Cassese 1989, p. 593). Michael Scharf endorsed this position (Scharf 2001, paras 99–103, cited in Abass 2006, p. 353, n. 18). Such designation is probably correct particularly because whereas treaties are only binding inter partes , they could anyway bind non-parties when their provisions are of a customary character.
221.
Cryer 2005, p. 85.
222.
For a comprehensive analysis of such prosecutions, until 10 March 2010, see Rikhof 2010, pp. 7–81.
223.
Zahar 2009, p. 148.
224.
Schabas 2003, pp. 40, 62–63.
225.
Rikhof 2010, pp. 45–46.
226.
For a succinct but thorough and chronological analysis of such case-law, ranging from the American prosecutions {International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Karl Brandt et al. (the Medical case ), 19 August 1947; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Erhard Milch et al. (the Milch case ), 16 April 1947; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Josef Altstötter et al. (the Justice case ), 3 December 1947; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Oswald Pohl et al. (the Pohl case ), 3 November 1947; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Friedrich Flick et al. (the Flick case ), 22 December 1947; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Carl Krauch et al. (the I.G. Fabren case), 29 July 1948; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Wilhelm List et al. (the Hostages case ), 19 February 1948; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Ulrich Greifelt et al. (the Rusha case ), 10 March 1948; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Otto Ohlendorf et al. (the Einsatzgruppen case ), 8 April 1948; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Alfried Krupp et al. (the Krupp case ), 31 July 1948; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Ernst von Weizsäcker et al. (the Ministries case ), 11–13 April 1949; International (Nuremberg) Military Tribunal, USA v Wilhelm von Leeb et al. (the High Command case ), 27 & 28 October 1948}, to the important French prosecutions of Klaus Barbie , Paul Touvier and Maurice Papon {Cour de Cassation , Chambre Criminelle [Court of Cassation (Criminal Law Chamber)], France , Prosecutor v Klaus Barbie , 6 October 1983, 83-93194; Cour de Cassation , Chambre Criminelle [Court of Cassation (Criminal Law Chamber)], France , France v Paul Touvier , 27 November 1992, 92-82409; Cour de Cassation , Chambre Criminelle, France , Prosecutor v Maurice Papon , 11 June 2004, 98-82.323} (see Bernaz and Prouvèze 2010, pp. 344–365).
227.
Nollkaemper 2011, p. 256.
228.
Nollkaemper 2011, pp. 257–264.
229.
Having studied law predominantly at the University of Malta and having practiced as a criminal defence lawyer and human rights lawyer in Malta , I was constantly exposed to a hybrid system of law which fascinatingly fuses Common Law and Continental Law , both substantively and procedurally. Malta is a CoE , EU and Commonwealth member State . However, until 1934, Italian was the official language which was used in judicial proceedings in Malta , and to date, Maltese laws , whilst being based upon the Code Napoléon (1804) Napoleonic Code and Corpus Juris Civilis Romani (534), posit a largely adversarial system particularly in trials by jury and before the Courts of Criminal Appeal as a result of the legal culture instilled by the English before Malta ’s independence gained on 21 September 1964.
230.
See Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute (1946) Statute of the International Court of Justice.
231.
Cassese 2009, p. 543.
232.
This formula was postulated in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970) which was signed in The Hague on 16 December 1970.
233.
This was adopted in 1996 by the ILC at its forty-eight session [UNGA Official Records 51st Session, Doc. A/51/10].
234.
Mitchell 2009, para 15.
235.
USA v Omar Mohammed Ali Rezaq , above n. 152.
236.
It has been applied in at least 15 multi-lateral conventions (Mitchell 2009, para 7).
237.
Roth 2009, p. 307.
238.
van Steenberghe 2011, p. 1111.
239.
Trapp 2011, p. 84.
240.
In these UN treaties, such as Article 7 of the The Hague Hijacking Convention (1970) The Hague Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Article 7 of the Montreal Convention (1971) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation and Article 8 of the Hostages Convention (1979) Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, the duty to prosecute exists regardless of a previous extradition request , rendering the aut judicare limb absolute.
241.
See Article 7 of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (1977).
242.
van der Voort and Zwanenburg 2003, pp. 308–309.
243.
Plachta 2001a, p. 75.
244.
See Article 6, para 9.
245.
Roth 2009, p. 307.
246.
ICD (2017) News Archive. http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/home/newsarchive#p19. Accessed 3 February 2017.
247.
van Steenberghe 2011, pp. 1113–1114.
248.
van Steenberghe 2011, p. 1114.
249.
Roth 2009, p. 308.
250.
BiH v Serbia and Montenegro , above n. 55, para 443.
251.
See UNGA Resolutions 2840 (XXVI) and 3074 (XXVIII), both cited in van Steenberghe 2011, p. 1115.
252.
This might be problematic for three main reasons, these being:
1. logistical movement of witnesses is expensive and burdensome;
2. unavailability of some evidence , especially accesses on-site; and
3. procedural restrictions on the tendering of evidence in another jurisdiction.
253.
Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba, Canada , Harvey Swystun v USA , 30 October 1987, 50 Man.R.(2d) 129 (QB).
254.
Kolb 2004, pp. 249–254.
255.
Becker 2001, p. 55.
256.
Obokata 2010, p. 51.
257.
Ryngaert 2008a, p. 101.
258.
This is qualified by the fact that, given the diffuse State practice , the aut dedere aut judicare rule ‘has the effect of potentially legitimising a claim of universality by a non-State party to suppress a terrorist offence defined in an anti-terrorist convention ’ (Kolb 2004, p. 275).
259.
Mitchell 2009, para 13.
260.
Examining Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006) signed in NY on 20 December 2006, Lisa Ott states that ‘if a State is not willing to extradite a suspected perpetrator, it is under the obligation to prosecute the individual’ (Ott 2011, p. 240).
261.
Kolb 2004, p. 252.
262.
Hesenov 2013
263.
For a historical, descriptive and critical analysis of such national prosecutions, see Ratner et al. 2009, pp. 185–202. For a regional and/or geographical approach to such study, see Rikhof 2010, pp. 7–81.
264.
During deliberations of the Commission on Human Rights ’ Working Groups in 1980 [Documents E/CN.4/1408 and E/1980/13], Sweden and Austria favoured the insertion of the aut dedere aut judicare rule within the CAT whereas the Netherlands supported the inclusion of universal jurisdiction without the dependence of a rejection of a prior request for extradition within the CAT , throughout deliberations of the Commission on Human Rights ’ Working Group in 1981{Documents E.CN.4/1475 and E/1981/25} (Burgers and Danelius 1988, pp. 62–64 and 72).
265.
Article 23.4 (genocide ) of the Spanish Organic Law of the Judicial Power (1985) Organic Law No. 6/1985; Belgian Act Concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols I and II of 18 June 1977 (1993), Official Journal of 5 August 1993, at 17751–17755, as amended by the Act Concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1999) Official Journal of 23 March 1999, at 9286–9287, (adopted in 1993, expanded in 1999 and repealed on 5 August 2003). Other important similar laws include Article 1 of the German Act to Introduce the Code of Crimes Against International Law {Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, VStGB} (2002), 26 June 2002 (violations of international humanitarian laws); French Law No. 96-432 on adapting French Law to the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 955 Establishing the International Tribunal for Rwanda , 22 May 1996 and French Law No. 95-1 on adapting French Law to the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 Establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia Since 1991, 2 January 1995 (crimes against international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia) and Article 689-2 of the French Law (1999) No. 99-115, 23 June 1999 amending Article 689 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure (torture ), Official Journal of 24 June 1999; Article 2,1(a) of the Netherlands International Crimes Act (2003) Act of 19 June 2003 Containing Rules Concerning Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (International Crimes Act ) (crimes against international humanitarian law and torture ); Article 134 of the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Act (Torture ) (Overseas Territories) Order (1988), 21 December 1988; and Article 6(1) of the Act Respecting Genocide , Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes and to Implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, Canada (2000) (crimes against international humanitarian law ).
266.
See, inter alia, Ethiopia Federal High Court, The Special Prosecutor v Col Mengistu Hailemariam and 173 Others , 9 October 1995, Criminal File No. 1/87, 1988 EC [GC], ILDC 555 (ET 1995), cited in Tronvoll et al. 2009, pp. 136–152; see also Langer 2015, pp. 251–252.
267.
Attorney-General of Israel v Adolf Eichmann , above n. 114. Eichmann , a German national, was kidnapped in Argentina and brought to face justice in Israel . The Israeli Supreme Court held that the notion of universal jurisdiction is firmly based on customary international law , and that consequently it existed independently of the Genocide Convention , as a result of which neither Argentina nor Germany questioned the exercise of universal jurisdiction by Israel . The Demjanjuk case followed suit [USA Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, John Demjanjuk v Joseph Petrowsky et al ., 31 October 1985, 776 F.2d 571, 85-3435, in International Law Reports , Vol. 79]. Similarly, USA courts have asserted that they enjoy jurisdiction over individuals even if such individuals were abducted and forcibly brought on USA territory [USA Supreme Court, USA v Humberto Alvarez-Machain , 15 June 1992, 504 U.S. 655 (112 S.Ct. 2188, 119 L.Ed.2d 441) 91/712]. Luring and trickery , leading to abductions, are practices commonly used by the USA Government as an alternative to extradition (Paust et al. 2007, p. 413; Norberg 2006, pp. 387–400). Such measures have been used for a number of decades. Adolf Eichmann , for example, way back on 11 May 1960, was snatched by Mossad agents as he returned home from work as a foreman at the Mercedes Benz plant outside Buenos Aires in Argentina (Schabas 2013b, pp. 683–684; see also Seret 2014, p. 3).
268.
ICTY Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v Dragan Nikolić , Decision on the Defence Motion Challenging the Exercise of Jurisdiction by the Tribunal, 9 October 2002, Case No. IT-94-2.
269.
ICTY Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v Slavko Dokmanović , Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused, 27 October 1997, Case No. ICTY-95-13a.
270.
Tallman 2003, p. 375.
271.
van Schaack and Slye 2010, p. 123.
272.
Reydams refers to such cases as virtual ones, since they ‘produced little more than headlines and diplomatic headaches’, whereas he refers to cases which led to extraditions and convictions for crimes committed abroad as ‘hard cases’ (Reydams 2011, pp. 347–349).
273.
Roht-Arriaza 2009a, pp. 77–94.
274.
For a succinct historical and chronological account of domestic prosecutions of core crimes pre-dating the Second World War until year 2008, see Kleffner 2008, pp. 33–38.
275.
UN Committee Against Torture , Suleymane Guengueng and Others v Senegal , 19 May 2006, CAT /C/36/D/181/2001, cited in AHRLR 56, AHRLR, JUTA Law on behalf of the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, 2006, para 2.1.
276.
Article 6(1)(1bis) of the Law of 17 April 1878, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended on 7 August 2003 (see above n. 123), necessitates, for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over core crimes, that:
i. the alleged accused is Belgian or has his primary residence in Belgium;
ii. the victim is Belgian or has lived in Belgium for at last three years at the time the crimes were committed; or
iii. Belgium is required by treaty to exercise jurisdiction over the case.
277.
States which have initiated or enacted comparable legislation include Australia [Australian ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments Act , 28 June 2002, No. 42, 2002], Canada [Act Respecting Genocide , Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes and to Implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, Canada (2000) Annual Statutes of Canada , Chap. 24, 29 June 2000], Costa Rica [Costa Rican Penal Code, as amended by Law 8272, 2 May 2003], Croatia [Article 10(2) of the Croatian Law on the Application of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Prosecution of Crimes Against International Laws of War and Humanitarian Law (2003) Official Gazette No. 175/2003, Article 14], the DRC [the DRC’s Military Justice Code (2002) The Democratic Republic of the Congo Military Justice Code, Act No. 023-2002, 18 November 2002], Finland [Finnish Criminal Code (2008) 13/1889, Laki rikoslain muuttamisesta (Law Amending the Criminal Code), as amended under Chap. 11, 212/2008, Sections 1–7, 11 April 2008], France [French Law (1999) No. 99-115, 23 June 1999 amending Article 689 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure , Official Journal of 24 June 1999], Germany [Section 1 of the German Act to Introduce the Code of Crimes Against International Law {Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, VStGB} (2002), 26 June 2002], Italy [Italy ’s Codice Penale [Criminal Code] (1889), amendment to Article 7, decreto legge 208, 30 July 2004], Malta [Article 54G of the Maltese Kodiċi Kriminali , Kapitolu 9 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta (Criminal Code, Chap. 9 of the Laws of Malta ), as amended in 2002], the Netherlands [Section 2(1)(a) of the Netherlands International Crimes Act (2003) Act of 19 June 2003 Containing Rules Concerning Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (International Crimes Act ), New Zealand [Section 8(1)(c) of the New Zealand International Crimes and ICC Act (2000) International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act, 1 October 2000], Norway [Norway ’s Criminal Code (1982) Norwegian General Civil Penal Code, Article 12.4], Portugal [Article 5 of Portugal ‘s Criminal Law Relating to Violations of International Humanitarian Law , 22 July 2004, No. 31/2004, amending Article 5 of the Penal Code], Scotland [Section 1(2)(b) of the Scotland ICC Act (2001) International Criminal Court (Scotland ) Act, 13 September 2001, 2001 asp 13], Slovenia (Slovenia ’s Criminal Code (1994), amended on 15 June 2005), South Africa [Section 4(2)(b) and (c) of the South African law (2002) Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Act No. 27 of 2002], Spain [Article 23.4 of the Spanish Organic Law of the Judicial Power (1985) Organic Law No. 6/1985], Switzerland [Swiss Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) (1937), as amended, SR 311.0], Trinidad and Tobago [Section 8 of the Trinidad and Tobago International Criminal Court Act (2006) Laws No. 4, § 10, 24 February 2006], the UK [Sections 51(2)(b) and 58(2)(b) of the UK ICC Act (2001) International Criminal Court Act, United Kingdom, 1 September 2001] and Uruguay [Uruguay ’s Law (2006) No. 18025, 25 September 2006] {see references to some of the above mentioned legal instruments in Kochler 2003, p. 85 and in Kleffner 2008, p. 276 n. 201]. In relation to Spain , Rikhof appropriately stresses that the scope of universal jurisdiction has been limited by 2009 amendments to the Organic Law of the Judiciary which require a more substantial connection of the perpetrator to Spain (Rikhof 2010, p. 56). The decision of many other States not to expressly provide for universal jurisdiction within their municipal law does ‘not imply that these States consider universal jurisdiction to be unlawful under international law’ (Ryngaert 2008a, p. 119). In fact, some of these States have undertaken certain prosecutions, supposedly on the basis of universal jurisdiction [Stockholm District Court, Prosecutor v Jackie Arklöf , 18 December 2006, B 4084-04]. Should States abuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction , the aggrieved State would most likely seek the redress of the ICJ on the basis of a violation of its sovereignty.
278.
DRC v Belgium , above n. 217.
279.
Pellet 2006, p. 88.
280.
ICJ (2012) Press release on Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal ). http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/144/16953.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2013
281.
The Global Edition of the New York Times (2014) World News, Saturday–Sunday, July 21–22, 2012, p. 3. http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/globaledition/. Accessed 12 May 2014
282.
Belgium v Senegal , above n. 40, sub-para 6 of final para 122.
283.
Belgium v Senegal , above n. 40.
284.
Ibid.
285.
Ibid.
286.
Sluiter 2004, pp. 176–177.
287.
Maclean R (2016) Chad ’s Hissène Habré Found Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity : Verdict in Senegal Makes Habre First Former Head of State to be Convicted of the Charge by the Courts of Another Country, Dakar. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/30/chad-hissene-habre-guilty-crimes-against-humanity-senegal. Accessed 9 February 2018.
288.
AI (2017) Hissène Habré Appeal Ruling Closes Dark Chapter for Victims. https://www.amnesty.org/en/pressreleases/2017/04/chad-hissene-habre-appeal-ruling-closes-dark-chapter-for-victims/. Accessed 9 July 2018
289.
This is the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States . See its decision [The Court of Justice of the Economic Community of the States of West Africa (ECOWAS), Hissène Habré v Republic of Senegal , 18 November 2010, Case No. ECJ /CCJ/JUD/06/10] rejecting Hissène Habré ’s claims dealing with human rights violations.
290.
See http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/05/senegal-case-against-habre-set-continue-0. Accessed 24 November 2016.
291.
They comprise an Extraordinary African Investigation Chamber within the Dakar Regional Court (Tribunal Régional Hors Classe), an Extraordinary African Indictments Chamber at the Dakar Court of Appeal, an Extraordinary African Assize Chamber at the Dakar Court of Appeal and an Extraordinary African Assize Appeal Chamber at the Dakar Court of Appeal.
292.
However, they have been categorized as a hybrid tribunal by TRIAL [see ICD (2017) News Archive. http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Courts/Hybrid. Accessed 9 March 2017].
293.
Tillier 2013, p. 518.
294.
HRW (2014) Q&A: The Case of Hissène Habré Before the Extraordinary African Chambers in Senegal. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/11/qa-case-hiss-ne-habr-extraordinary-african-chambers-senegal. Accessed 10 July 2014.
295.
IBA (2018) Iraqi High Tribunal. http://www.ibanet.org/Committees/WCC_IHT.aspx. Accessed 3 September 2018.
296.
Reydams 2003, p. 86.
297.
Ascencio 2003, p. 692.
298.
Rigoberta Menchu et. al. v Ríos Montt et al., above n. 118, para 208, cited in Robinson 2016, p. 117, n. 80.
299.
The Economist (2018) https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2018/04/05/the-death-and-cruel-life-of-efrain-rios-montt. Accessed 2 June 2018.
300.
Barreto B, Freed D, Fabi R (2017) Former Guatemalan Dictator Ríos Montt to Face Second Genocide Trial. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-guatemala-rights-montt-idUSKBN17402W. Accessed 2 August 2017.
301.
Rigoberta Menchu et. al. v Rios Montt et. al, above n. 118; see also Roht-Arriaza 2006, pp. 207–213.
302.
Audiencia Nacional , Spain , Graciela P de L and Others v Scilingo , 19 April 2005, ILDC 136 (ES 2005), para 6, cited in van der Wilt 2011, pp. 1055–1056, n. 51.
303.
This is translated by Harmen van der Wilt to the effect that it conveys ‘the failure to criminally prosecute the crimes in Argentina as a justificatory element of the second degree for the activation of Spanish jurisdiction ’ (van der Wilt 2011, p. 1055, n. 51).
304.
Weiss 2007, p. 31.
305.
de la Rasilla del Moral 2009.
306.
van der Wilt 2011, p. 1056.
307.
For a comprehensive understanding of Spain ’s rapport with universal jurisdiction , both legislatively and jurisprudentially, see Ryngaert 2008b, pp. 160–166.
308.
Explanations on the Draft of an Act to Introduce the Code of Crimes Against International Law, p. 82, cited in Ryngaert 2008b, p.170, n. 49.
309.
van der Wilt 2011, p. 1056.
310.
Bassiouni has consistently referred to circumstances ‘when that State cannot fairly and effectively prosecute’ (Bassiouni 1999, p. 220, cited in Olson 2011, p. 328).
311.
See http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106575. Accessed 27 January 2017
312.
Tribunal Primero de Sentencia Penal, Guatemala City , Guatemala , Ríos Montt Judgment, 10 May 2013, No C01076-2011-00015, containing 718 pages, referred to in Kemp 2014, p. 134, n. 2.
313.
Kemp 2014, p. 134 and 135.
314.
Constitutional Court , Guatemala , Tribunal Primero A, Guatemala , Rigoberta Menchu et al. v Ríos Montt et al. (Genocide in Guatemala ), 20 May 2013, Case No. Exp 1904-2013, a summary of which is available in Spanish. http://www.prensalibre.com/noticias/justicia/Resolucion-CC-Exp1904_PREFIL20130522_0004.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2016.
315.
Kemp 2014, p. 133 and pp. 154–155.
316.
Burt 2016.
317.
Kemp 2014, pp. 155–156.
318.
Robinson 2016, p. 132.
319.
Roger O’Keefe identifies three ways how, as manifestations of practice and opinio juris on the part of the forum State , domestic dicta may contribute to the development of international jurisdictional rules, these being:
(a) domestic dicta are, in and of themselves, practice of the forum State ;
(b) domestic dicta trigger practice by other States because the reaction of one State to the practice by another State itself constitutes State practice ; and
(c) domestic dicta trigger international dicta which develop international rules on jurisdiction and pronouncements by international courts which, in turn, clarify rules of international law.
O’Keefe 2013, pp. 542–556.
320.
O’Keefe 2013, p. 557.
321.
van der Wilt 2013, p. 228 and 210.
322.
van der Wilt 2013, p. 228.
323.
AI 2011, p. 2.
324.
Orentlicher 1991, p. 2565.
325.
Stewart 2014.
326.
Audiencia Nacional , Spain , Fundación Casa del Tibet and Others v Jiang Zemin and Others , Appeal Judgment on Admissibility, 10 January 2006, ILDC 1002 (ES 2006), cited in van der Wilt 2011, p. 1056, n. 53.
327.
Kassam A (2014) Spain Moves to Curb Legal Convention Allowing Trials of Foreign Rights Abuses. The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/11/spain-end-judges-trials-foreign-human-rights-abuses. Accessed 9 August 2016.
328.
Soler 2014, pp. 285–315.
329.
van der Wilt 2011, p. 1062.
330.
See, for example, demands made by Madelaine Mangabu Bukumba and Garcia Mukumba in Federal Court of Canada , Trial Division, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada , Madeleine Mangabu Bukumba and Gracia Mukumba v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 22 January 2004, [2004] FC 93, and requests for refugee status by Agathe Habyarimana leading to the decision of the Appeals Commission for Refugees, 2nd Division, France , Agathe Habyarimana neé Kanziga, 15 February 2007, 564776.
331.
‘An important limitation to extradition is the prohibition of refoulement ’ (Ott 2011, p. 230).
332.
Goodwin-Gill and McAdam 2007, p. 259.
333.
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy , 23 February 2012, Application No. 27765/09.
334.
Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy , above n. 333, Concurring Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
335.
Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy , above n. 334, Concurring Opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, pp. 64–64.
336.
For a comprehensive analysis of the intriguing interaction between international criminal law and international refugee law , especially in the context of the law on State cooperation, see Yabasun and Holvoet 2013, pp. 742–744.
337.
See, for example, ECtHR First Section, Iovchev v Bulgaria , 2 February 2006, Application No. 41211/98, paras 83–93; ECtHR Second Section, Peers v Greece , 19 April 2001, Application No. 28524/95, para 275; ECtHR Third Section, Dougoz v Greece , 6 March 2001, Application No. 40907/98, para 255.
338.
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Nassim Saadi v Italy , 28 February 2008, Application No. 37201/06.
339.
UN Committee Against Torture , Tahir Hussain Khan v Canada , 4 July 1994, Communication No. 15/1994, para 12.1.
340.
ICJ (2012) Press Release No. 2012/13 issued on 21 March 2012 in relation to Belgium v Senegal , above n. 40.
341.
Article 6, para 2 and Article 7, para 1 of the CAT .
342.
ICJ (2012) Press Release No. 2012/13 issued on 21 March 2012 in relation to Belgium v Senegal , above n. 40.
343.
See Chap. 4.
344.
Cottim 2010.
345.
AI 2009, p. 14.
346.
See Article 90 of the ICC Statute , above n. 44.
347.
This case involved the terrorist bombing of Pan American trans-atlantic flight 103 from Heathrow Airport , London to JFK Airport in NY on 21 December 1988.
348.
Plachta defines it as the ‘delivery of the accused to a third state’ (Plachta 2001b, p. 136).
349.
Acquaviva 2009, p. 254.
350.
Aoude 2014, para 5.2.
351.
Plachta 2001b, p. 135.
352.
Scharf 2008, pp. 521–527.
353.
See http://online.wsj.com/articles/west-raises-pressure-on-russia-in-downing-of-malaysia-airlines-flight-17-1405909097. Accessed 31 January 2018
354.
ICD (2014) News Archive, 30 July 2014. http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/home/newsarchive#p27. Accessed 30 March 2016.
355.
Milanovic 2018.
356.
ICD (2016) News Archive, 30 July 2014. http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/home/newsarchive#p27. Accessed 30 March 2016.
357.
Holvoet 2016, p. 36, n. 6.
358.
Sudan Tribune (2017) Plural News and Views on Sudan, South Sudan Says Establishing Hybrid Courts Undermines Peace, Juba. http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article61533. Accessed 23 March 2017
359.
This connotes a meeting on the grass (Carter 2008, p. 41).
360.
These were established in Rwanda in March 2001, heard cases of genocide , and had the power to sentence criminals up to life imprisonment .
361.
Powers 2011.
362.
Le Mon 2007, p. 16
363.
de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, pp. 937–938.
364.
This stipulates that the proceedings in the domestic State must be conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice, for unwillingness to subsist.
365.
These don’t admit of a separation between prosecutors and judges (referred to as person of integrity, inyangamugayo ), there is no legal counsel, no procedural rules forbidding the admission of hearsay evidence , and no motivated verdict , whereas self-incrimination is greatly encouraged. Such lay people of integrity were appointed from the local community in view of the fact that most Rwandan lawyers were killed during the genocide itself [de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, p. 941].
366.
Carter 2008, p. 49.
367.
Mibenge 2005, p. 195
368.
Uvin 2003, p. 118
369.
Uvin 2003, p. 119.
370.
Kindiki 2001, p. 69.
371.
Uvin 2003, p. 119.
372.
So-called ‘category one genocidaires ’ are not tried by gacaca courts (Gaparayi 2001, p. 83).
373.
Uvin 2003, p. 119.
374.
Wahid Hanna 2008, p. 320.
375.
Powers 2011.
376.
ECtHR Fifth Section, Sylvère Ahorugeze v Sweden , 27 October 2011, Application No. 37075/09, para 37.
377.
HRW (2011) Justice Compromised: The Legacy of Rwanda ’s Community-Based Gacaca Courts , pp. 27–64. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/rwanda0511webwcover.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2012.
378.
HRW (2011) Justice Compromised: The Legacy of Rwanda ’s Community-Based Gacaca Courts , pp. 104–111. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/rwanda0511webwcover.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2012.
379.
Chakravarty 2006, p. 135.
380.
Rettig 2008, p. 39.
381.
HRW (2011) Justice Compromised: The Legacy of Rwanda ’s Community-Based Gacaca Courts , p. 34. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/rwanda0511webwcover.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2012.
382.
Avocats Sans Frontières (2010) Monitoring des Jurisdiction Gacaca, Phase de Jugement, Rapport Analytique no 5: Janvier 2008-Mars 2010 [Monitoring of the Gacaca Courts , Judgment Phase: Analytical Report No. 5, January 2008–March 2010] http://www.asf.be/wp-content/publications/Rwanda_MonitoringGacaca_RapportAnalytique5_Light.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2014; see also Chakravarty 2006, pp. 136–137.
383.
Rettig 2008, p. 39.
384.
Rettig 2008, pp. 40–41.
385.
HRW (2011) Justice Compromised: The Legacy of Rwanda ’s Community-Based Gacaca Courts , pp. 112–116. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/rwanda0511webwcover.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2012.
386.
de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, p. 950.
387.
de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, p. 946.
388.
See the objectives of FEDEFAM (The Latin American Federation of Associations for Relatives of the Detained-Disappeared), a NGO founded in January 1981 in San Jose , Costa Rica and formalized in Caracas , Venezuela , in November 1981, and comprising various countries with member associations, including Argentina , Bolivia , Brasil , Colombia , Chile , Ecuador , El Salvador , Guatemala , Honduras , Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay , Peru and Uruguay , in FEDEFAM (1981) Desaparecidos: Fighting Against Forced Disappearances in Latin America . http://www.desaparecidos.org/fedefam/eng.html. Accessed 3 January 2013.
389.
de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, p. 971.
390.
de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, pp. 938–943; see also Rettig 2008, p. 44.
391.
Panepinto 2012, pp. 101–102.
392.
de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, p. 950.
393.
de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, p. 974.
394.
Le Mon 2007, p. 19.
395.
Ibid.
396.
de Brouwer and Ruvebana 2013, p. 972.
397.
Magsam 2007, p. 162.
398.
This is the European Anti-Fraud Office established on 28 April 1999 by virtue of Decision 1999/352 EC, ECSC, Euratom.
399.
In July 2013 the European Commission proposed a Regulation on the establishment of a EPPO in terms of Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (2007) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52013PC0534. Accessed 2 March 2014.
400.
Klip 2002, p. 111.
401.
See http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/. Accessed 31 March 2015.
402.
Rowlands D (2012) Centurean 2/’s Weblog, EU -Style Justice Corpus Juris. http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/eu-style-justice-corpus-juris-by-david-rowlands-ret-magistrate/. Accessed 30 July 2013.
403.
Such developments, but particularly the EAW , have led Michael Plachta to compare the EU to a laboratory where ‘several new and interesting ideas have developed and some experiments have been carried out’ (Plachta 2003, p. 179).
404.
Ligeti 2013, p. 3.
405.
European Council (2010) The Stockholm Programme : An Open and Secure Europe Serving and Protecting Citizens, 2010/C 115/01. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:115:0001:0038:en:PDF. Accessed 12 January 2012.
406.
Terrorism is punishable directly under the Statute of the STL (2007) Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon by virtue of its Article 2(a) (Serra 2008, pp. 350–351). For an in-depth analysis of the circumstances wherein terrorism may constitute a core crime, see Kaikobad 2007, pp. 187–276.
407.
Saul 2006, p. 183. Fiona de Londras states that ‘the absence of a crime of terrorism within the Rome Statute does not mean, however, that no argument can be made that terrorism per se is in fact an international crime as a matter of customary international law ’ (De Londras 2011, p. 175).
408.
See Sect. 8.1.
409.
Obokata 2005, p. 445; see also Bassiouni 2008c, pp. 593.
410.
EUROJUST , housed in The Hague, is a EU body established by a Council Decision 2002/187/JHA to improve judicial cooperation in the fight against serious crime (amended by Council Decision 2003/659/JHA and Council Decision 2009/426/JHA).
411.
To this effect, four options were assessed. These are (1) the creation of a EPPO within Eurojust , (2) a college-type EPPO , (3) a decentralised EPPO and (4) a centralised EPPO (van Ballegooij 2018, p. 30). Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU establishes that such an office would function within the auspices of EUROJUST [Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on EU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU {2008/C 115/01}]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0001:01:en:HTML. Accessed 12 January 2012.
412.
For an analysis of the legal instruments which are aimed at implementing the mutual recognition principle , see Weyembergh 2013, pp. 957–975.
413.
Article 86(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU , above n. 399, which is a provision of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, allows the extension of the competence of the EPPO , by unanimous decision of the European Council, to include serious crimes having a cross-border dimension . (Ligeti 2013, p. 2).
414.
Article 9, para 3.
415.
This falls within the EU ’s third pillar of Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.
416.
HRW (2018) Detention Without Trial. https://www.hrw.org/topic/terrorism-counterterrorism/detention-without-trial. Accessed 17 November 2018.
417.
ECJ , Fourth Chamber, SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities , 10 May 2007, Case C-328/05 P, para 59.
418.
ECJ , Criminal Proceedings Against Maria Pupino , Opinion of Advocate General Kokott , 11 November 2004, Case C-105/03, para 67; ECJ , Third Chamber, Varec SA v Belgian State , 14 February 2008, Case C-450/06.
419.
Hoge Raad [Supreme Court], the Netherlands , Public Prosecutor v Sebastien Nzapali , 1 December 2009, S/07-12112.
420.
DomCLIC (2016) http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=36&level1=15248&level2=&level3=&textid=39989. Accessed 4 September 2016 and ICD (2016), http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/1128. Accessed 4 September 2016.
421.
ECtHR (2015) Information Notes on the Court’s Case-Law, No. 191, pp. 9–10.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CLIN_2015_12_191_ENG.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2015.
422.
This was the most important secret detention centre in Buenos Aires at the time of the military juntas , being years 1976–1983 (Roht-Arriaza 2009a, p. 50).
423.
Weiss 2007, p. 32.
424.
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación [Supreme Court], Mexico, Ricardo Miguel Cavallo , Amparo en Revision, 10 June 2003, Case No. 14/2002.
425.
See Tribunal Oral Federal Nº 5, Prosecutor v Ricardo Miguel Cavallo , 26 October 2011, Case No. 1298; Poder Judicial de la Nación, Buenos Aires, Prosecutor v Ricardo Miguel Cavallo , Full Verdict , 28 December 2011, Case No. 1298. The 2005-page full verdict is available in Spanish at http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/20121101T041309-Cavallo%20Tribunal%20Buenos%20Aires%20Fallo%2028-12-2011.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2016.
426.
Weiss 2007, p. 32.
427.
IACtHR , Goiburú et al. v Paraguay , 22 September 2006, Series C No. 153, para 84; IACtHR , Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v Perú , 25 November 2006, Series C No. 160.
428.
IACtHR , La Cantuta v Perú (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 29 November 2006, Series C No. 162.
429.
HRC , Bautista de Arellana v Colombia , 27 October 1995, Communication No. 563/1993, para 8.6.
430.
Constitutional Court , South Africa , National Commission of the South African Police Service and Another v Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre and Another (Zimbabwe Torture Docket case ), 30 October 2014 [2014] ZACC 30, para 32, cited in Ventura 2015, p. 869, n. 41 and p. 871, n. 54.
431.
Scharf 1996, p. 1.
432.
Cryer et al. 2010, p. 71.
433.
For the purposes of my book, I shall use the term ‘fundamental human rights ’, rather than ‘human rights ’ or ‘fundamental rights’, the latter being the EU counterpart of the internationally used term ‘human rights ’. The term ‘fundamental human rights ’ encompasses the international understanding of ‘human rights ’ and the communitarian regime of ‘fundamental rights’, typified by the designation of one of its advisory bodies, the FRA, housed in Vienna and set up by means of a legal act in 2007. The nomenclature used herein, ‘fundamental human rights ’, clearly presupposes a level of gravity which is commensurate to the designation of core crimes, being the ‘most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole’ [see the Preamble to the ICC Statute , above n. 44].
434.
ECtHR, Third Section, Carol Ciorcan and Others v Romania , 27 January 2015, Application Numbers 29414/09 and 44841/09, para 147.
435.
Zimbabwe Torture Docket case , above n. 430, paras 55 and 47, cited in Ventura 2015, p. 877, n. 76.
436.
Ventura 2015, pp. 880–881, notes 82–99.
437.
FRA (2014) Challenging the Decision Not to Prosecute, cited in Mujuzi 2016, p. 108, n. 2. See also Chap. 21, Sect. 21.2.
438.
France dropped criminal charges of torture and additional charges in terms of Articles 222-1 and 222-6 of the Code Pénal against Pascal Simbikangwa , a Rwandan living in France , owing to its failure to satisfy the domestic statute of limitations {namely Article 7 of the Code de Procédure Pénale, France (1957)} which bars criminal action after the lapse of ten years from the consummation of the crime if, during such ten year period, no investigation or legal proceedings were commenced (Trouille 2016, p. 200, n. 28).
439.
The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, UK, Ndiki Mutua, Paulo Nzili, Wambugu Wa Nyigi, Jane Muthoni Mara and Susan Ngondi v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office , 5 October 2012, HQ09X02666, para 9.
440.
Mujuzi 2016, p. 123, n. 110.
441.
ECtHR Chamber, Alecos Modinos v Cyprus , Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pikis, 22 April 1993, Application Number 15070/89, pp. 19–20, cited in Mujuzi 2016, p. 122, n. 95.
442.
ECtHR Grand Chamber, Tejedor García v Spain , 16 December 1997, Application No. 142/1996/761/962, paras 8 and 25, cited in Mujuzi 2016, p. 122, n. 99.
443.
IACtHR , Velásquez-Rodrίguez v Honduras , 29 July 1988, Series C, No. 4, para 166. A particularly significant development signalled by this judgment is that ‘States may even incur responsibility for abuses committed by individuals acting in a private capacity’ as a result of ‘the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the American Convention on Human Rights ’ [van der Wilt 2000, p. 327]. The ground-breaking judgment was also invoked by the Colombian State Council in Colombian State Council , Hector Jaime Beltran Parra, Clara Patricia, Nidia Amanda, Jose Antonio and Mario Beltran Fuentes , 19 July 2007 (Ayala 2016, p. 312, n. 27).
444.
Corte Suprema de Argentina [Supreme Court], Argentina , Arancibia Clavel, Enrique Lautaro Homicidio Calificado y Asociación Ilicita y Otros , 24 August 2004, Case No. 259, paras 4 and 13, cited in Ferdinandusse 2006, p. 198, n. 1172, and p. 75.
445.
Tribunal Constitucional, Estado de Bolivia , José Carlos Trujillo Oroza José contra Luis Dabdoub López y Jacinto Morón Sánchez , Sentencia, 12 November 2001, Resolucion 1190/01-R, cited in Ferdinandusse 2006, p. 198, n. 1173.
446.
Court of Appeals, Santiago, Chile , Fernando Laureani Maturana and Miguel Krassnoff Marchenko v. Miguel Ángel Sandoval Rodríguez, 5 January 2004, 517-2004, paras 49 and 84, cited in Ferdinandusse 2006, p. 198, n. 1174.
447.
Corte Constitucional [Constitutional Court ], Sala Plena, Bogotá, Colombia , Sentencia (In re Corte Penal Internacional) , 30 July 2002, C-578/02, paras 2265, 2268–2269 and 2275–2277, cited in Ferdinandusse 2006, p. 198, n. 1175.
448.
Cavallo , above n. 424, para 909, cited in Ferdinandusse 2006, p. 198, n. 1176.
449.
Ventura 2015, p. 869, n. 41 and pp. 875–876.
450.
HRC , Hugo Rodríguez v Uruguay , 9 August 1994, Communication No. 322/1988 (1994), para 6.4.
451.
Mujuzi 2016, p. 108 and p. 117.
452.
ECtHR, Remetin v Croatia , 11 December 2012, Application Number 29525/10, para 104, cited in Mujuzi 2016, pp. 119–120, n. 72.
453.
Xenos 2012.
454.
Stark 2014, p. 222.
455.
The ACHPR (1981) African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights does not fall within this category [see Article 1].
456.
Article 2 of the ICCPR (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1 of the ECvHR , above n. 217, and Article 1, para (1) of the IACvHR (1969) Inter-American Convention on Human Rights .
457.
Schabas 2013b, p. 219.
458.
Under the ICC Statute , above n. 44, murder can constitute a crime against humanity, killing could be tantamount to genocide , whereas wilful killing can be punishable as a war crime , should all the constitutive ingredients of these core crimes be met.
459.
Mowbray contends that the State obligation to effectively investigate claims of torture is less well developed than the corresponding obligation to investigate claims by relatives or friends on behalf of a decuius or a disappeared person (Mowbray 2004, p. 64).
460.
Ott 2011, p. 112.
461.
This right has been recognized by the ECtHR [ECtHR Grand Chamber, Cyprus v Turkey , 10 May 2001, Application No. 25781/94], by the IACtHR [IACtHR , Nicholas Chapman Blake v Guatemala , 24 January 1998, Series C No. 36; see also IACtHR , Anstraum Aman Villagrán-Morales et al. v Guatemala (Case of the ‘Street Children ’), 19 November 1999, Series C No. 63], and by the Human Rights Chamber of BiH [Human Rights Chamber for BiH, Ferida Selimović et al. v Republika Srpska (Srebrenica cases ), 7 March 2003, Case numbers CH/01/8365 etc]. It is premised on two underlying categories of protection:
i. a State’s failure to disclose the fate of a person in the custody of the State constitutes inhuman treatment with respect to family members and is a continuing violation of applicable protections against such treatment;
ii. a State’s failure to adequately investigate and prosecute crimes committed against a person in its custody constitutes a violation of the family’s right of access to justice .
Groome 2011, p. 177.
A continuing violation subsists when ‘a violation that began before the State’s ratification of the treaty or acceptance of jurisdiction continues or has effects thereafter’ (Pasqualucci 2013, p. 138).
462.
Groome 2011, p. 175.
463.
Cyprus v Turkey , above n. 461, para 136. In this case although the evidence that 1,485 missing persons were unlawfully killed was highly insufficient, the ECtHR held, in para 132, that the procedural obligation to conduct an effective official investigation ‘also arises upon proof of an arguable claim that an individual, who was last seen in the custody of agents of the State , subsequently disappeared in a context which may be considered life-threatening’.
464.
For an understanding of this principle, see Serrano 2011, pp. 92–101; see also Evans 2011, pp. 1–7; see also Scheffer 2011, pp. 305–322.
465.
Andrew Drzemczewski, speaking of its unique and sui generis characteristics , refers to the ECtHR as an autonomous source within domestic legal fora (Drzemczewski 1983, p. 11).
466.
For a thorough understanding of the weight that ought to be given to certain judicial pronouncements, which matter is comparable to the recognition of foreign judgments, see Nollkaemper 2011, pp. 244–279.
467.
A customary rule may have been established on a regional scale. Lepard refers to such rules as local or special customary norms (Lepard 2010, p. 108).
468.
See Article 6, para 2 of the Lisbon Treaty. The reasons for such accession and the modalities thereof are eloquently explained in a speech delivered by former Judge and vice-President of the ECtHR, Francoise Tulkens, to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (in Krakow, Poland) in a European Judicial Training Network – Human Rights and Access to Justice Seminar, held on 1 March 2013. http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/About%20EJTN/Independent%20Seminars/Human%20Rights%20and%20Access%20to%20Justice%20Seminar/Krakow_Tulkens_final.pdf. Accessed 19 October 2013.
469.
ECtHR, Third Section, Kelly and Others v UK , 4 May 2001, Application No. 30054/96.
470.
Kelly and Others v UK , above n. 469, para 94.
471.
Kelly and Others v UK , above n. 469, para 96.
472.
Kelly and Others v UK , above n. 469, para 118, and see also Chap. 21, Sect. 21.2.
473.
Kelly and Others v UK , above n. 469, para 137.
474.
This also emerged from ECtHR, Fourth Section, Anya Velikova v Bulgaria , 18 May 2000, Application No. 41488/98, para 80. Such requirements generally relate to the institutional independence of investigators , the means and processes of inquiries, together with promptness and reasonable expedition .
475.
ECtHR, Anton Assenov and Others v Bulgaria , 28 October 1998, Application No. 90/1997/874/1086.
476.
ECtHR Second Section, Sevtap Veznedaroğlu v Turkey , 11 April 2000, Application No. 32357/96.
477.
ECtHR Second Section, Hasan İlhan v Turkey , 9 November 2004, Application No. 22494/93.
478.
ECtHR First Section, Kadir Satik and Others v Turkey , 10 October 2000, Application No. 31866/96.
479.
ECtHR, Assya Anguelova v Bulgaria , 13 June 2002, Application No. 38361/97.
480.
UK Supreme Court, R (on the application of Smith (FC) (Respondent)) v Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant) and another , 30 June 2010, [2009] EWCA Civ 441.
481.
ECtHR, Second Section, M.E. v Denmark , Application No. 58363/10, 8 July 2014, para 50.
482.
Under the first paragraph within the title ‘criminal law provisions ’, the Resolution on Criminal Procedures in the EU (Corpus Juris) ‘recalls that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms constitutes the foundation stone of European integration in the field of criminal law from which it has been possible to derive fundamental principles to serve henceforth as the common legal and cultural denominator of the Member States of the European Union’ [European Parliament Resolution (1999) Resolution on Criminal Procedures in the European Union (Corpus Juris), 30 July 1999, A4-0091/99, OJ C/219/106]. Moreover, by way of example, Judge John Hedigan held that the codification of criminal law in Ireland can make use of various benefits deriving directly from the ECvHR (Hedigan 2008). Rehman acknowledged that ‘international human rights law has advanced in various forms to have a substantial interaction with an influence on domestic criminal justice processes’ (Rehman 2002, p. 517).
483.
Kamminga 2001, pp. 944–949.
484.
For a contrary view, see Margueritte 2011, pp. 436–438.
485.
Seibert-Fohr 2005, p. 555.
486.
Wiebelhaus-Brahm 2011, pp. 370–372.

References

ACHPR (1981) African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Google Scholar
AI (2017) Hissène Habré Appeal Ruling Closes Dark Chapter for Victims. https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2017/04/chad-hissene-habre-appeal-ruling-closes-dark-chapter-for-victims/. Accessed 9 July 2018
AI (2009) The International Law Commission: The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (Aut Dedere Aut Judicare), IOR 40/001/2009, AIP. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/48000/ior400012009en.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2012
AI (2011) Universal Jurisdiction: A Preliminary Survey of Legislation Around the World. IOR 53/004/2011, AIP. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/IOR53/004/2011/en/. Accessed 14 January 2016
Abass A (2006) The International Criminal Court and Universal Jurisdiction. ICLR 6(3):349–385
Google Scholar
Acquaviva G (2009) Aut Dedere Aut Judicare. In Cassese A (eds) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. OUP, Oxford, pp. 253–254
Google Scholar
Act Respecting Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes and to Implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, Canada (2000) Annual Statutes of Canada, Chapter 24, 29 June 2000
Google Scholar
Adanan A (2013) Universal Jurisdiction as a Tool for Seeking Accountability for Serious Human Rights Violations. Irish Centre for Human Rights
Google Scholar
Akhavan P (2010) Whither National Courts? The Rome Statute’s Missing Half: Towards an Express and Enforceable Obligation for the National Repression of International Crimes. JICJ 8(5):1245–1266
Google Scholar
Akram SM (2006) The Arab Charter on Human Rights 2004. Translated by Al-Midani MA, Cabanettes M In: BUILJ 24:147–164
Google Scholar
Ambos K (1999) Volkerrechtliche Bestrafungspflichten bein schweren Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Archiv des Völkerrechts. 37(3):318–356
Google Scholar
Aoude S (2014) The Lockerbie Legality: What Went Wrong in International Criminal Law? http://mathaba.net/info/locker-leg.htm. Accessed 3 October 2015
Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004)
Google Scholar
Ascencio H (2003) Are Spanish Courts Backing Down on Universality? The Supreme Tribunals’ Decision in Guatemalan Generals. JICJ 1(3):690–702
Google Scholar
ASF (2010) Monitoring des Jurisdiction Gacaca, Phase de Jugement, Rapport Analytique no 5: Janvier 2008–Mars 2010. http://www.asf.be/wp-content/publications/Rwanda_MonitoringGacaca_RapportAnalytique5_Light.pdf. Accessed 30 December 2014
Australian ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments Act, 28 June 2002, No. 42, 2002
Google Scholar
Ayala C (2016) The Judicial Dialogue Between International and National Courts in the Inter-American Human Rights System. In: Scheinin M, Krunke H, Aksenova M (eds) Judges as Guardians of Constitutionalism and Human Rights. EE, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, pp. 306–328
Google Scholar
Bakker CAE (2006) Universal Jurisdiction of Spanish Courts over Genocide in Tibet: Can it Work? JICJ 4(3):595–601
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC (1987) International Extradition, United States Law and Practice, 2nd revised edn. OPI, Dobbs Ferry, NY
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC (1996) International Crimes Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes. LCP 59(4):63–74
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC (1999) Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, 2nd revised edn. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International Criminal Law: Procedural and Enforcement Mechanisms, Vol. II, 2nd edn. TP, NY, pp. 521–588
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC (2001) Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice. VJIL 42(1):81–161
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC (2008a) Crimes Against Humanity, In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International Criminal Law: Sources, Subjects and Contents, Vol. I, 3rd edn. MNP, Ledien, pp. 437–492
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC (2008b) The Need for International Accountability. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International Criminal Law: International Enforcement, Vol. III, 3rd edn. MNP, Leiden, pp. 3–28
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC (2008c) Enslavement: Slavery, Slave-Related Practices, and Trafficking in Persons for Sexual Exploitation. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International Criminal Law, Sources, Subjects and Contents, Vol. I, 3rd edn. MNP, Leiden, pp. 535–598
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC, Vetere E (1998) Towards Understanding Organized Crime and its Transnational Manifestations. In: Bassiouni MC, Vetere E (eds) Organized Crime: A Compilation of UN Documents, 1975–1998. TP, Ardsley, NY
Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC, Wise EM (1995) Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law. MNP, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
Becker SW (2001) Commentary on the Princeton Principles. Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/unive_jur.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2011
Belgian Act Concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols I and II of 18 June 1977 (1993), Official Journal of 5 August 1993, at 17751–17755, as amended by the Act Concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1999) Official Journal of 23 March 1999, at 9286–9287
Google Scholar
Belgium’s Law Concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions (1878) as amended on 18 July 2001 (Loi Portant Modification de l’Article 12bis de la Loi du 17 avril 1878 Contenant le Titre Préliminaire du Code de Procedure Pénale) and on 7 August 2003 (Loi relative aux violations graves du droit international humanitaire)
Google Scholar
Ben-Naftali O (2009) The Obligations to Prevent and Punish Genocide. In: Gaeta P (ed) The United Nations Genocide Convention: A Commentary. Oxford Commentaries on International Law, OUP, pp. 27–57
Google Scholar
Benavides L (2001) The Universal Jurisdiction Principle: Nature and Scope. Annuario Mexicano de derecho internacional 1:19–96
Google Scholar
Bernaz N, Prouvèze R (2010) International and Domestic Prosecutions. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) The Pursuit of International Criminal Justice: A World Study on Conflicts, Victimization, and Post-Conflict Justice, Volume 1. Intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford, Portland, pp. 269–398
Google Scholar
Boas G, Bischoff JJ, Reid NL (2007) Forms of Responsibility in International Criminal Law, Vol. 1. International Criminal Law Practitioner Library Series, CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Boed R (2000) The Effect of a Domestic Amnesty on the Ability of Foreign States to Prosecute Alleged Perpetrators of Serious Human Rights Violations. CILJ 33(2):297–329
Google Scholar
Brody R, Ratner M (2000) (eds) The Pinochet Papers: The Case of Augusto Pinochet in Spain and Britain. KLI, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands
Google Scholar
Burens L (2016) Universal Jurisdiction Meets Complementarity: An Approach Towards a Desirable Future Codification of Horizontal Complementarity Between the Member States of the International Criminal Court. CLF 27(1):75–97
Google Scholar
Burgers JH, Danelius H (1988) The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. International Studies in Human Rights, MNP, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
Burt J-M (2016) Appeals Court Upholds Suspension of Ríos Montt Genocide Trial, International Justice Monitor: A Project of the Open Society Justice Initiative, Summary from Guatemala Trials at the National Courts of Guatemala. http://www.ijmonitor.org/2016/06/appeals-court-upholds-suspension-of-rios-montt-genocide-trial/. Accessed 13 May 2017
Byers M (1997) Conceptualising the Relationship Between Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Rules. NJIL 66(2-3):211-239
Google Scholar
CAT (1984) Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Google Scholar
Campbell T (2004) Prescriptive Legal Positivism: Law, Rights and Democracy. Routledge, T & F, London/NY
Google Scholar
Carter LE (2008) Justice and Reconciliation on Trial: Gacaca Proceedings in Rwanda. NEJICL 14(1):41–55
Google Scholar
Casalunga L (2007) Anonima Sequestri Sarda: L’Archivio dei Crimini (1960–1997) [Kidnaps by Anonima Sarda: Archives of the Crimes (1960–1997)]. Fratelli Frilli Editori, Genova, Italy
Google Scholar
Cassese A (1986) International Law in a Divided World. Thomson/West, CP, Wotton-under-Edge, UK
Google Scholar
Cassese A (1989) The International Community’s Legal Response to Terrorism. ICLQ 38(3):589–608
Google Scholar
Cassese A (1990) Remarks on Scelle’s Theory of “Role Splitting”. EJIL 1:210–231
Google Scholar
Cassese A (2003) Is the Bell Tolling for Universality? A Plea for a Sensible Notion of Universal Jurisdiction. JICJ 1(3):589–595
Google Scholar
Cassese A (2009) Taking Stock of the Genocide Convention and Looking Ahead. In: Gaeta P (ed) The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary, Oxford Commentaries on International Law, OUP, pp. 531–544
Google Scholar
Chakravarty A (2006) Gacaca Courts in Rwanda: Explaining Divisions Within the Human Rights Community. YJIA 1(2):132–148
Google Scholar
Ciconte E (2015) Riti Criminali: I Codici di Affiliazione alla ‘Ndrangheta [Criminal Rituals: The Code of Membership with the ‘Ndrangheta]. Rubbettino, Catanzaro, Italy
Google Scholar
Code de Procédure Pénale, France (1957)
Google Scholar
Code Napoléon (1804) Napoleonic Code
Google Scholar
Code Pénal, France (1810)
Google Scholar
Cohen W, Danelski DJ (1997) Constitutional Law: Civil Liberties and Individual Rights, 4th edn. FP, Westbury, NY
Google Scholar
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (2012) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, C 326/47
Google Scholar
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006)
Google Scholar
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970)
Google Scholar
Corpus Juris Civilis Romani (534)
Google Scholar
Costa Rican Penal Code, as amended by Law 8272, 2 May 2003
Google Scholar
Cotta S (1997) Soggetto Umano: Soggetto Giuridico [Human Being: Subject of the Law]. Giuffre` Editore spa, Milano, Italia
Google Scholar
Cottim AA (2010) Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism and Jurisdiction: An Analysis of Article 22 of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. EJLS, European University Institute, MNP, Leiden. http://www.ejls.eu/6/78UK.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2016
Council Framework Decision (2002) on Combating Terrorism, Doc. 2002/475/JHA
Google Scholar
Council Framework Decision on the EAW (2002) Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between the Member States, Doc. 2002/584/JHA
Google Scholar
Criddle EJ, Fox-Decent E (2009) A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens. YJIL 34(2):331–387
Google Scholar
Croatian Law on the Application of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Prosecution of Crimes Against International Laws of War and Humanitarian Law (2003) Official Gazette No. 175/2003, Article 14
Google Scholar
Cryer R (2005) Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime. Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 2nd edn. CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Currie RJ (2007) Abducted Fugitives Before the International Criminal Court: Problems and Prospects. CLF 18(3-4):349–393
Google Scholar
de Brouwer A-M, Ruvebana E (2013) The Legacy of the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda: Survivors’ Views. ICLR 13(5):937–976
Google Scholar
de Hoogh A (1996) Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: A Theoretical Inquiry into the Implementation and Enforcement of the International Responsibility of States. KLI, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands
Google Scholar
de la Rasilla del Moral I (2009) The Swan Song of Universal Jurisdiction in Spain. ICLR 9(5):777–808
Google Scholar
de Londras F (2011) Terrorism as an International Crime. In: Schabas WA, Bernaz N (eds) Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law. Routledge, T & F, London/NY, pp. 169–180
Google Scholar
de Marco G (2007) Foreword. In: Fachinetti G, Franci F, Mastroleo G, Pagliaro V, Ricci G, Illogica di un Conflitto: La Logica Fuzzy Applicata Alla Crisi Tra Israele e Libano [An Illogical Conflict: Fuzzy Logic Applied to the Arab-Israeli Conflict]. Eurlink Editori, Rome
Google Scholar
Dean F, D’Innocenzio M, Pugliese P, Ricci A (2003) Diritto Penale Internazionale: Lezioni agli Studenti [International Criminal Law: Lectures for Students], Terza Edizione. Marghiacci, Galeno Editrice, Roma
Google Scholar
Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Google Scholar
Drzemczewski AZ (1983) European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law: A Comparative Study. CP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Dutch Constitution (2008) Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Google Scholar
Dutch Criminal Code (1881) Criminal Code of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Google Scholar
D’Amato A (1971) The Concept of Custom in International Law. CllUP, Ithaca, NY
Google Scholar
ECvHR (1950) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Google Scholar
El Zeidy M (2008) The Principle of Complementarity in International Criminal Law: Origin, Development and Practice. MNP, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
Enache-Brown C, Fried A (1998) Universal Crime, Jurisdiction and Duty: The Obligation of Aut Dedere Aut Judicare in International Law. McGLJ 43:613–633
Google Scholar
Eser A (2004) For Universal Jurisdiction: Against Fletcher’s Antagonism. UTLR 39(4):955–978
Google Scholar
European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (1977)
Google Scholar
European Parliament Resolution (1999) Resolution on Criminal Procedures in the European Union (Corpus Juris), 30 July 1999, A4-0091/99, OJ C/219/106
Google Scholar
Evans G (2011) Crimes Against Humanity and the Responsibility to Protect. In: Sadat LN (ed) Forging a Convention for Crimes Against Humanity. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 1–7
Google Scholar
FEDEFAM (1981) Desaparecidos: Fighting Against Forced Disappearances in Latin America. http://www.desaparecidos.org/fedefam/eng.html. Accessed 3 January 2013
Ferdinandusse WN (2006) Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts. Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Finnis J (2011) Natural Law and Natural Rights, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Finnish Criminal Code (2008) 13/1889, Laki rikoslain muuttamisesta [Law Amending the Criminal Code], as amended under Chapter 11, 212/2008, Sections 1 to 7, 11 April 2008
Google Scholar
Finucane B (2010) Enforced Disappearance as a Crime under International Law: A Neglected Origin in the Laws of War. YJIL 35(1):171–197
Google Scholar
Fletcher GP (2003) Against Universal Jurisdiction, Editorial Comments. JICJ 1(3):580–584
Google Scholar
Freestone D (1997) International Cooperation Against Terrorism and the Development of International Law Principles of Jurisdiction. In: Higgins R, Flory M (eds) Terrorism and International Law. T & F, Routledge, London, pp. 43–67
Google Scholar
French Law No. 96-432 on adapting French Law to the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 955 Establishing the International Tribunal for Rwanda, 22 May 1996
Google Scholar
French Code Pénal (1810)
Google Scholar
French Law (1999) No. 99-115, 23 June 1999 amending Article 689 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, Official Journal of 24 June 1999
Google Scholar
French Law No. 95-1 on adapting French Law to the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 Establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia Since 1991, 2 January 1995
Google Scholar
Gaparayi IT (2001) Justice and Social Reconstruction in the Aftermath of Genocide in Rwanda: An Evolution of the Possible Role of the Gacaca Tribunals. AHRLJ 1(1):78–106
Google Scholar
Garner BA (2009) Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th edn. Thomson West, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
Google Scholar
Geneuss J (2013) Volkerrechtsverbrechen und Verfolgungsermessen: § 153f StPO im System volkerrechtlicher Strafrechttspflege. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (1949a) Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (1949b) Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (1949c) Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (1949d) Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Google Scholar
Genocide Convention (1948) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Google Scholar
German Act to Introduce the Code of Crimes Against International Law {Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, VStGB} (2002), 26 June 2002
Google Scholar
Gondek M (2009) The Reach of Human Rights in a Globalizing World: Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland
Google Scholar
Goodwin-Gill GS, McAdam J (2007) The Refugee in International Law. 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Groome D (2011) The Right to Truth in the Fight Against Impunity. BJIL 29(1):175–199
Google Scholar
HRW (2011) Justice Compromised: The Legacy of Rwanda’s Community-Based Gacaca Courts. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/rwanda0511webwcover.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2012
HRW (2014) Q&A: The Case of Hissène Habré Before the Extraordinary African Chambers in Senegal. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/11/qa-case-hiss-ne-habr-extraordinary-african-chambers-senegal. Accessed 12 July 2015
HRW (2018) Detention Without Trial. https://www.hrw.org/topic/terrorism-counterterrorism/detention-without-trial. Accessed 17 November 2018
Hedigan J (2008) Codification of the Criminal Law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Paper submitted at the 22nd International Conference of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law held in Dublin, 11–15 July 2008. http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/2008/Hedigan.pdf. Accessed 9 March 2012
Henzelin M (2000) Le Principe de l’Universalité en Droit Pénal International: Droit et Obligation pour les États de Poursuivre et Juger Selon le Principe de l’Universalité [The Principle of Universality under International Criminal Law: Law and Obligations for States to Prosecute and Judge in Terms of the Principle of Universality], Helbin and Lichtenhahn, Munich, Geneva, Brussels
Google Scholar
Herman S (1994) Double Jeopardy All Over Again: Dual Sovereignty, Rodney King, and the ACLU. University of California Los Angeles Law Review 41:609–647
Google Scholar
Hesenov R (2013) Aut Dedere Aut Judicare as a Principle in International Criminal Law. Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. http://jg.kiev.ua/pages/data/18/5.pdf. Accessed 11 December 2013
Hieramente M (2011) The Myth of “International Crimes”: Dialectics and International Criminal Law. GJIL 3(2):551–588
Google Scholar
Holvoet M (2016) The Continuing Relevance of the Hybrid or Internationalized Justice Model: The Example of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers. CLF 28(1):35–73
Google Scholar
Hoover DV (2011) Universal Jurisdiction Not So Universal: A Time to Delegate to the International Criminal Court. Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate, Student Conference Papers, Paper 52, Cornell Law Library
Google Scholar
Hossain K (2005) The Concept of Jus Cogens and the Obligation under the United Nations Charter. SCJIL 3(1):72–98
Google Scholar
Hostages Convention (1979) Convention Against the Taking of Hostages
Google Scholar
IACvHR (1969) Inter-American Convention on Human Rights
Google Scholar
IBA (2018) Iraqi High Tribunal. http://www.ibanet.org/Committees/WCC_IHT.aspx. Accessed 3 September 2018
ICC Statute (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Google Scholar
ICCPR (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Google Scholar
ICJ Statute (1946) Statute of the International Court of Justice
Google Scholar
IDI (2006) Krakow Session Resolution III: Universal Criminal Jurisdiction with Respect to the Crime of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes. Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, 7I-II: 297-301
Google Scholar
ILC (1996) Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first session, Supplement No.10, UN Doc. A/51/10
Google Scholar
ILC (2000) Third Report on State Responsibility by James Crawford, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/507/Add. 1–4
Google Scholar
ILC (2011) Concluding Remarks (Report) of the Special Rapporteur Zdzisław Galicki, Sixty-Third Session. The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare). ILC Report A/66/10. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/reports/2011/All%20languages/A_66_10_E.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2013
ILC Yearbook (1966) Vol. II. Documents of the Second Part of the Seventeenth Session and of the Eighteenth Session Including the Reports of the Commission to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add.1
Google Scholar
International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act, New Zealand (2000), Public Act 2000 No. 26
Google Scholar
Islamic Sharīʿah Law { }
Google Scholar
Italy’s Codice Penale [Criminal Code] (1889), amendment to Article 7, decreto legge 208, 30 July 2004
Google Scholar
Jeẞberger F (2007) Universality, Complementarity, and the Duty to Prosecute Crimes under International Law in Germany. In: Kaleck W, Ratner M, Singelnstein T, Weiss P (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 213–222
Google Scholar
Jeẞberger F, Powell C (2001) Prosecuting Pinochet in South Africa - Implementing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. SAJCJ 14:344–362
Google Scholar
Jia BB (2012) The Immunity of State Officials for International Crimes Revisited. JICJ 10(5):1303–1321
Google Scholar
Kadelbach S (2006) Jus Cogens, ‘Obligations Erga Omnes and Other Rules - The Identification of Fundamental Norms. In: Tomuschat C, Thouvenin J-M (eds) The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes. MNP, Leiden/Boston, pp. 21–40
Google Scholar
Kaikobad KH (2007) Crimes Against International Peace and Security, Acts of Terrorism and Other Serious Crimes: A Theory on Distinction and Overlap. ICLR 7(2-3):187–276
Google Scholar
Kamminga MT (2001) Lessons Learned from the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences. HRQ 23(4):940–974
Google Scholar
Kemp S (2014) Guatemala Prosecutes Former President Rios Montt: New Perspectives on Genocide and Domestic Criminal Justice. JICJ 12(1):133–156
Google Scholar
Kennedy D (1987) International Legal Structures. Nomos, Baden Baden
Google Scholar
Kindiki K (2001) Prosecuting the Perpetrators of the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda: Its Basis in International Law and the Implications for the Protection of Human Rights in Africa. AHRLJ 1(1):64–77
Google Scholar
Kleffner JK (2003) The Impact of Complementarity on National Implementation of Substantive Criminal Law. JICJ 1(1):86–113
Google Scholar
Kleffner JK (2008) Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdiction, International Courts and Tribunals Series. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Klein D (1988) A Theory for the Application of the Customary International Law of Human Rights by Domestic Courts. YJIL 13(2):332–365
Google Scholar
Klip A (2002) Conditions for a European Corpus Juris Criminalis. In: Faure M, Smits J, Schneider H (eds) Towards a European Ius Commune in Legal Education and Research. Maastricht Faculty of Law, Interesentia, Antwerpen/Groningen, pp. 109–123
Google Scholar
Kluwen T (2017) Universal Jurisdiction in Absentia Before Domestic Courts Prosecuting International Crimes: A Suitable Weapon to Fight Impunity? GTIL 8(1):7–38
Google Scholar
Knoops G-J A (2002) Surrendering to International Criminal Courts: Contemporary Practice and Procedures. International and Comparative Criminal Law Series, TP, Ardsley, NY
Google Scholar
Kochler H (2003) Global Justice or Global Revenge? International Criminal Justice at the Crossroads. Springer, Vienna/NY
Google Scholar
Kolb R (2004) The Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction over International Terrorists. In: Bianchi A (ed) Enforcing International Law Norms Against Terrorism. HP, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, USA, 2004, pp. 227–281
Google Scholar
Kramer MH (2003) In Defense of Legal Positivism: Law Without Trimmings. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Kreẞ C (2006) Universal Jurisdiction Over International Crimes and the Institut de Droit International. JICJ 4(3):561–585
Google Scholar
Krings BL (2012) The Principles of Complementarity and Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law: Antagonists or Perfect Match? GJIL 4(3):737–763
Google Scholar
Langer M (2011) The Diplomacy of Universal Jurisdiction: The Political Branches and the Transnational Prosecution of International Crimes. AJIL 105(1):1–49
Google Scholar
Langer M (2015) Universal Jurisdiction is Not Disappearing: The Shift From “Global Enforcer” to “No Safe Haven” Universal Jurisdiction. JICJ 13(2):245–256
Google Scholar
Le Mon CL (2007) Rwanda’s Troubled Gacaca Courts. The Human Rights Brief, Centre for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. 14(2):16–20
Google Scholar
Lee W-C (2010) International Crimes and Universal Jurisdiction. In: May L, Hoskins Z (eds) International Criminal Law and Philosophy. ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory, CUP, Cambridge, pp. 15–38
Google Scholar
Lepard BD (2010) Customary International Law: A New Theory with Practical Applications. ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory, CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Ligeti K (2013) Introduction. In Ligeti K (ed) Towards a Prosecutor for the European Union: A Comparative Analysis, Vol. I. Modern Studies in European Law, HP, Bloomsbury, pp. 1–6
Google Scholar
Linderfalk U (2009) Normative Conflict and the Fuzziness of the International Ius Cogens Regime. Max-Planck Institut fur auslandisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht 69(4):961–979
Google Scholar
Lisbon Treaty (2007) Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community
Google Scholar
Lo Bianco G, Rizza S (2007) L’Agenda Rossa di Paolo Borsellino [Paolo Borsellino’s Red Diary]. Chiarelettere Editore, Milano, Italy
Google Scholar
Luban D (2004) A Theory of Crimes Against Humanity. YJIL 29(1):85–167
Google Scholar
Magsam D (2007) Coming to Terms with Genocide in Rwanda: The Role of International and National Justice. In: Kaleck W, Ratner M, Singelnstein T, Weiss P (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 159–165
Google Scholar
Maltese Kodiċi Kriminali, Kapitolu 9 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta [Criminal Code, Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta], as amended in 2002, Article 54G
Google Scholar
Margueritte T (2011) International Criminal Law and Human Rights. In: Schabas WA, Bernaz N (eds) Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law. Routledge, T & F, London and NY, 2011, pp. 435–452
Google Scholar
Maritain J (2012) Christianity and Democracy: The Rights of Man and Natural Law. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, California, USA
Google Scholar
McDougal MS, Myers S, Harold D, Lasswell HD, Chen L-C (1980) Human Rights and World Public Order: The Basic Policies of an International Law of Human Dignity. YUP, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Google Scholar
Meron T (1986) On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights. AJIL 80(1):1–23
Google Scholar
Mettraux G (2009) The Law of Command Responsibility. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Mibenge C (2005) Alternative Forms of Justice: Lessons Learned From Rwanda. In: Ankumah EA, Kwakwa EK (eds) African Perspective on International Criminal Justice. Africa Legal Aid, Accra/Maastricht/Pretoria, pp. 187–195
Google Scholar
Migliorino L (1995) La Dichiarazione delle Nazioni Unite sulle Misure per Eliminare il Terrorismo Internazionale [The United Nations Declaration on Measures Aimed to Suppress International Terrorism]. RDI 78:962–972
Google Scholar
Milanovic M (2018) The Netherlands and Australia Attribute the Downing of MH17 to Russia. EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-netherlands-and-australia-attribute-the-downing-of-mh17-to-russia/. Accessed 1 October 2018
Mitchell C (2009) Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Extradite or Prosecute Clause in International Law: The Scope and the Operation of the Obligation. Collections Électroniques de l’Institut de Hautes Études Internationales et du Développement, GIP. http://iheid.revues.org/302. Accessed 30 March 2018
Montreal Convention (1971) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
Google Scholar
Morris M (2001) High Crimes and Misconceptions: the International Criminal Court and non-Party States. LCP 64(1):13–66
Google Scholar
Mowbray A (2004) The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights. HP, Oxford/Portland, Oregon
Google Scholar
Mujuzi JD (2016) Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System in the European Union Through Private Prosecutions: Issues Emerging from the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. EJCCLCJ 24(2-3):107–134
Google Scholar
New Zealand International Crimes and ICC Act (2000) International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act, 1 October 2000
Google Scholar
Nollkaemper A (2011) National Courts and the International Rule of Law. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Norberg N (2006) The United States Supreme Court Affirms the Filartiga Paradigm. JICJ 4(2):387–400
Google Scholar
Norway’s Criminal Code (1982) Norwegian General Civil Penal Code, Article 12.4
Google Scholar
Nowak M, McArthur E with the contribution of Buchinger K, Kozma J, Schmidt R, Tschan I, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights Vienna (2008) The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Commentary. OUP, Oxford/NY
Google Scholar
Ntwari DS (2015) Rwandan Genocide: Pascal Simbikangwa Appeal Set: as DRC Arrests Key Suspect. Afrika Reporter. http://www.afrikareporter.com/rwandan-genocide-pascal-simbikangwa-appeal-set-as-drc-arrests-key-suspect/. Accessed 4 May 2017
Obokata T (2005) Trafficking of Human Beings as a Crime Against Humanity: Some Implications for the International Legal System. ICLQ 54(2):445–457
Google Scholar
Obokata T (2010) Transnational Organised Crime in International Law, Studies in International and Comparative Criminal Law, Vol. 5. HP, Oxford/Portland, Oregon
Google Scholar
Olson LM (2011) Re-enforcing Enforcement in a Specialized Convention on Crimes Against Humanity: Inter-State Cooperation, Mutual Legal Assistance, and the Aut Dedere Aut Judicare Obligation. In: Sadat LN (ed) Forging a Convention for Crimes Against Humanity. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 323–344
Google Scholar
Orentlicher DF (1991) Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime. YLJ 100(8):2537–2615
Google Scholar
Ott L (2011) Enforced Disappearance in International Law. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland
Google Scholar
O’Keefe R (2004) Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept. JICJ 2(3):735–760
Google Scholar
O’Keefe R (2013) Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of the International Law of Jurisdiction. LJIL 26(3):541–558
Google Scholar
Panepinto A (2012) Reviewing Clark P (2010) The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: Justice Without Lawyers. CUP, Cambridge. In: ICLR 12(1):101–103
Google Scholar
Pasqualucci JM (2013) The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2nd edn. CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Paust JJ, Bassiouni MC, Scharf M, Gurulè J, Sadat L, Zagaris B (2007) International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, 3rd edn. CAP, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Google Scholar
Pellet A (2006) Comments in Response to Christine Chinkin and in Defence of Jus Cogens as the Best Bastion Against the Excesses of Fragmentation. FYIL XVII:83–90
Google Scholar
Philippe X (2006) The Principles of Universal Jurisdiction and Complementarity: How Do the Two Principles Intermesh? IRRC 88(862):375–398
Google Scholar
Plachta M (2001a) The Lockerbie Case: The Role of the Security Council in Enforcing the Principle Aut Dedere Aut Judicare. EJIL 12(1):125–140
Google Scholar
Plachta M (2001b) Contemporary Problems of Extradition: Human Rights, Grounds for Refusal and the Principle Aut Dedere Aut Judicare, UNAFEI Annual Report for 1999 and Resource Material Series No. 57. http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no57/57-07.pdf. Accessed 21 August 2011
Plachta M (2003) European Arrest Warrant: Revolution in Extradition? EJCCLCJ 11(2):178–194
Google Scholar
Pocar F, Maystre M (2010) The Principle of Complementarity: A Means Towards a More Pragmatic Enforcement of the Goal Pursued by Universal Jurisdiction? In: Bergsmo M (ed) Complementarity and the Exercise of Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes. Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law Publication Series No. 7, TOAEP, Oslo, pp. 247–303
Google Scholar
Poels A (2005) Universal Jurisdiction In Absentia. NQHR 23(1):65–84
Google Scholar
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, United Kingdom (2011)
Google Scholar
Portugal ‘s Criminal Law Relating to Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 22 July 2004, No. 31/2004, amending Article 5 of the Penal Code
Google Scholar
Posner EA (2009) Erga Omnes Norms, Institutionalization, and Constitutionalism in International Law. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 165(1):5–23
Google Scholar
Powers SE (2011) Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts: Implications for International Criminal Law. ASIL Insights 15(17). http://www.asil.org/insights110623.cfm. Accessed 23 June 2014
Rabinovitch R (2004) Universal Jurisdiction In Absentia. FILJ 28(2):500–530
Google Scholar
Ragazzi M (1997) The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes. Oxford Monographs in International Law, CP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Randall K (1988) Universal Jurisdiction under International Law. TLR 66:785–837
Google Scholar
Rastan R (2010) Complementarity: Contest or Collaboration? In: Bergsmo M (ed) Complementarity and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes. Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law Publication Series No. 7, TOAEP, Oslo, pp. 83–132
Google Scholar
Ratner SR, Abrams JS, Bischoff JL (2009) Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy. 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Rau M (2003) Das Ende der Weltrechtspflege? : zur Abschaffung des belgischen Gesetzes über die universelle Verfolgung völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen. Humanitäres Völkerrecht : Informationsschriften 16(4): 212–216
Google Scholar
Rehman J (2002) The Influence of International Human Rights Law upon Criminal Justice Systems. JCL 66:510–527
Google Scholar
Rettig M (2008) Gacaca: Truth, Justice and Reconciliation in Post-Conflict Rwanda? ASR 51(3):25–50
Google Scholar
Reydams L (2003) Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Reydams L (2011) The Rise and Fall of Universal Jurisdiction. In: Schabas WA, Bernaz N (ed) Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law. Routledge, T & F, London and NY, pp. 337–354
Google Scholar
Rikhof J (2010) Fewer Places to Hide?: The Impact of Domestic War Crimes Prosecutions on International Impunity. In: Bergsmo M (ed) Complementarity and the Exercise of Jurisdiction for Core International Crimes. Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law Publication Series No. 7, TOAEP, Oslo, pp. 7–81.
Google Scholar
Roberts AE (2001) Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation. AJIL 95(4):757–791
Google Scholar
Robinson A (2016) Challenges to Justice at Home: The Domestic Prosecution of Efrain Rios Montt. ICLR 16(1):103–133
Google Scholar
Roht-Arriaza N (2006) Comment on the Spanish Constitutional Court, Guatemala Genocide Case. AJIL 100(1):207–213
Google Scholar
Roht-Arriaza N (2007) The Pinochet Effect and the Spanish Contribution to Universal Jurisdiction. In: Kaleck W, Ratner M, Singelnstein T, Weiss P (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 113–123
Google Scholar
Roht-Arriaza N (2009a) The Multiple Prosecutions of Augusto Pinochet. In: Lutz EL, Reiger C (eds) Prosecuting Heads of State. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 77–94
Google Scholar
Roht-Arriaza N (2009b) Prosecution of Heads of State in Latin America. In: Lutz EL, Reiger C (eds) Prosecuting Heads of State. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 48–76
Google Scholar
Roth R (2009) The Extradition of Genocidaires. In: Gaeta P (ed) The United Nations Genocide Convention: A Commentary. Oxford Commentaries on International Law, OUP, Oxford, pp. 278–309
Google Scholar
Rowlands D (2012) Centurean 2/’s Weblog, EU-Style Justice Corpus Juris. http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/eu-style-justice-corpus-juris-by-david-rowlands-ret-magistrate/. Accessed 30 July 2013
Ryngaert C (2005) Universal Criminal Jurisdiction Over Torture: A State of Affairs After 20 Years United Nations Torture Convention. NQHR 23(4):571–611
Google Scholar
Ryngaert C (2006) Universal Jurisdiction in an International Criminal Court Era: A Role to Play for EU member States with the Support of the European Union. EJCCLCJ 14(1):46–80
Google Scholar
Ryngaert C (2007) Universal Jurisdiction Over Genocide and Wartime Torture in Dutch Courts: An Appraisal of the Afghan and Rwandan Cases. HJJ 2(2):14–36
Google Scholar
Ryngaert C (2008a) Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford Monographs in International Law, OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Ryngaert C (2008b) Applying the Rome Statute’s Complementarity Principle: Drawing Lessons from the Prosecution of Core Crimes by States Acting under the Universality Principle. CLF 19(1):153–180
Google Scholar
Ryngaert C (2015) The Concept of Jurisdiction in International Law. In: Orakhelashvili A (ed) Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law. Research Handbook in International Law, EE, pp. 50–75
Google Scholar
Sands P (2003) International Law Transformed? From Pinochet to Congo? LJIL 16(1):37–53
Google Scholar
Saul B (2006) Defining Terrorism in International Law. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Saviano R (2006) Gomorra: Viaggio nell’Impero Economico e nel Sogno di Dominio della Camorra [Gomorra: Journey Through the Economic Empire and the Dream of Dominion of the Camorra]. Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milano, Italy
Google Scholar
Scelle G (1932) Précis de Droit des Gens [Human Rights Brief], Librairie du Recueil Sirey (Société anonyme), Paris
Google Scholar
Schabas WA (2003) National Courts Finally Begin to Prosecute Genocide. JICJ 1(1):39–63
Google Scholar
Schabas W (2013a) International Criminal Law and Tribunals and Human Rights. In: Sheeran S, Rodley N (eds) Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law. Routledge Handbooks, Routledge, T & F, pp. 215–229
Google Scholar
Schabas W (2013b) The Contribution of the Eichmann Trial to International Law. LJIL 26(3):667–699
Google Scholar
Scharf M (1996) The Letter of the Law: The Scope of the International Legal Obligation to Prosecute Human Rights Crimes. LCP 59(4):41–62
Google Scholar
Scharf MP (2001) The ICC’s Jurisdiction Over the National of Non-Party States: A Critique of the US Position. LCP 64(1):67–117
Google Scholar
Scharf M (2008) The Lockerbie Model of Transfer of Proceedings. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International Criminal Law: Multilateral and Bilateral Enforcement Mechanisms, Vol. II, 3rd edn. MNP, Leiden, pp. 521–527.
Google Scholar
Scheffer D (2011) Crimes Against Humanity and the Responsibility to Protect. In: Sadat LN (ed) Forging a Convention for Crimes Against Humanity. CUP, Cambridge, pp. 305–322
Google Scholar
Schlutter B (2010) Developments in Customary International Law: Theory and Practice of the International Court of Justice and the International Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. MNP, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
Schwobel CEJ (2011) Global Constitutionalism in International Legal Perspective. MNP, Leiden/Boston
Google Scholar
Scotland ICC Act (2001) International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act, 13 September 2001, 2001 asp 13
Google Scholar
Seibert-Fohr A (2005) Reconstruction Through Accountability. MPYUNL 9:555–578
Google Scholar
Seret R (2014) Hannah Ardent and Crimes Against Humanity Editorial. JICJ 12(1):3–5
Google Scholar
Serra G (2008) Special Tribunal for Lebanon: A Commentary on its Major Legal Aspects. ICJR 18(3):344–355
Google Scholar
Serrano M (2011) The Responsibility to Protect: Libya and Côte d’Ivoire. Amsterdam Law Forum, VUA 3:3:92–101
Google Scholar
Shelton D (2014) International Law and Relative Normativity. In: Evans MD (ed) International Law, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford, 159–185
Google Scholar
Simbeye Y (2004) Immunity and International Criminal Law. Ashgate, Farnham, UK
Google Scholar
Sinclair I (1984) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2nd edn. MUP, Manchester
Google Scholar
Slovenia’s Criminal Code (1994), amended on 15 June 2005
Google Scholar
Sluiter G (2004) Implementation of the ICC Statute in the Dutch Legal Order. JICJ 2(1):158–178
Google Scholar
Slye RC, van Schaack B (2009) Essentials: International Criminal Law. WK, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands
Google Scholar
Soler C (2014) A Conceptual Re-Characterization of Universal Criminal Jurisdiction. Id-Dritt XXIV:285–315. http://www.ghsl.org/en/products/webshop/28/id-dritt-xxiv.htm. Accessed 13 January 2018
South African law (2002) Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Act No. 27 of 2002
Google Scholar
Spanish Organic Law of the Judicial Power (1985) Organic Law No. 6/1985, Article 23.4
Google Scholar
Stark F (2014) Reviewing Ashworth A (2013) Positive Obligations in Criminal Law. Hart, Oxford. In: CLJ 73(1):220–224
Google Scholar
Statute of the STL (2007) Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Google Scholar
Stephens PJ (2004) A Categorical Approach to Human Rights Claims: Jus Cogens as a Limitation on Enforcement? WILJ 22(2):245–272
Google Scholar
Steven LA (1999) Genocide and the Duty to Extradite or Prosecute: Why the United States is in Breach of Its International Obligations. VJIL 39(2):425–466
Google Scholar
Stewart MP (2014) The Internationalist, Council on Foreign Relations, Spain Welcomes Retreat on Universal Jurisdiction. http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2014/02/14/spains-welcome-retreat-on-universal-jurisdiction/. Accessed 9 August 2016
Straffeloven [Criminal Code], Denmark (1930) Law number 126
Google Scholar
Strafprozeẞordnung [Code of Criminal Procedure], Germany (1987)
Google Scholar
Swiss Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) (1937), as amended, SR 311.0
Google Scholar
Tallman DA (2003) Universal Jurisdiction: Lessons from Belgium’s Experience. In: Stromseth JE (ed) Accountability for Atrocities: National and International Responses. International and Comparative Criminal Law Series, TP, Ardsley, NY, pp. 375–409
Google Scholar
Tams CJ (2005) Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, CUP, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Thalmann V (2009) National Criminal Jurisdiction Over Genocide. In: Gaeta P (ed) The United Nations Genocide Convention: A Commentary. Oxford Commentaries on International Law, OUP, pp. 231–258
Google Scholar
The DRC’s Military Justice Code (2002) The Democratic Republic of the Congo Military Justice Code, Act No. 023-2002, 18 November 2002
Google Scholar
The Economist (2018) From Dictator to Defendant: The Death and the Cruel Life of Efraín Ríos Montt. https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2018/04/05/the-death-and-cruel-life-of-efrain-rios-montt. Accessed 2 June 2018
The Hague Hijacking Convention (1970) The Hague Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
Google Scholar
The Netherlands International Crimes Act (2003) Act of 19 June 2003 Containing Rules Concerning Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (International Crimes Act)
Google Scholar
Tillier J (2013) The International Criminal Court Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity: Strengthening the Rule of Law? ICLR 13(3):507–591
Google Scholar
Trapp KN (2011) State Responsibility for International Terrorism: Problems and Prospects. OUP, Oxford
Google Scholar
Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts (1997)
Google Scholar
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (2007) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Google Scholar
Trinidad and Tobago International Criminal Court Act (2006) Laws No. 4, § 10, 24 February 2006
Google Scholar
Tronvoll K, Schaefer C, Aneme GA (2009) Concluding the Main Red Terror Trial. In: Tronvoll K, Schaefer C, Aneme G (eds) The Ethiopian Red Terror Trials: Transitional Justice Challenged. LHPS, Currey, Woodbridge, pp. 136–152
Google Scholar
Trouille HL (2016) Universal Jurisdiction and Rwandan Genocidaires: The Simbikangwa Trial. JICJ 14(1):195–217
Google Scholar
Tulkens F (2013) Speech delivered to the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution (in Krakow, Poland) in a European Judicial Training Network – Human Rights and Access to Justice Seminar. http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/About%20EJTN/Independent%20Seminars/Human%20Rights%20and%20Access%20to%20Justice%20Seminar/Krakow_Tulkens_final.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2016
UDHR (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Google Scholar
UK ICC Act (2001) International Criminal Court Act, United Kingdom, 1 September 2001
Google Scholar
UN Committee Against Torture (2004) Thirty-Third Session, Doc. CAT/C/SR.624
Google Scholar
UNGA (1971) Resolution 2840 (XXVI) (1971), UN Doc. A/8429
Google Scholar
UNGA (1973) Resolution 3074 (XXVIII) (1973), UN Doc. A/RES/3074
Google Scholar
UNSC (2001) Resolution 1373 (2001), UN Doc. S/RES/1373
Google Scholar
UNTAET Regulation (2000) Doc. No. UNTAET/REG/2000/15
Google Scholar
United Kingdom Criminal Justice Act (Torture) (Overseas Territories) Order (1988), 21 December 1988
Google Scholar
Uruguay’s Law (2006) No. 18025, 25 September 2006
Google Scholar
Usacka A (2016) Constitutionalism and Human Rights at the International Criminal Court. In: Scheinin M, Krunke H, Aksenova M (eds) Judges as Guardians of Constitutionalism and Human Rights. EE, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA, pp. 281–305
Google Scholar
Uvin P (2003) The Gacaca Tribunals in Rwanda: Case Study. In: Bloomfield D, Barnes T, Huyse L (eds) Reconciliation After Conflict, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm, Sweden, International IDEA. https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/reconciliation-after-violent-conflict-handbook.pdf. Accessed on 2 April 2017
Vajda MM (2010) The 2009 AIDP’s Resolution on Universal Jurisdiction – An Epitaph or a Revival Call?! ICLR 10(3):325–344
Google Scholar
van Ballegooij W (2018) European Public Prosecutor’s Office - A View on the State of Play and Perspectives from the European Parliament. In: Geelhoed W, Erkelens LH, Meij AWH (eds) Shifting Perspectives on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Asser Press, The Hague, pp. 27–38
Google Scholar
van der Meersch G (1977) Memorandum/Paper entitled ‘Questions of Common Interest which may Form the Subject of Exchanges of Views and Information’. Information on the Court of Justice of the European Communities 1977 – III. Information Office, Court of Justice of the European Communities, Luxembourg. http://aei.pitt.edu/36612/1/A2709.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2011
van der Voort K, Zwanenburg MC (2003) Amnesty and the Implementation of the ICC: Some Country Studies. In: Haveman R, Kavran O, Nicholls J (eds) Supranational Criminal Law: A System Sui Generis, Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/NY, pp. 305–345
Google Scholar
van der Wilt H (2000) The International Criminal Court and Domestic Jurisdictions: Competition or Concerted Action? In: Coomans F, Grunfeld F, Westendorp I, Willems J (eds) Rendering Justice to the Vulnerable: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Theo van Boven. KLI, Dordrecht, pp. 328–338
Google Scholar
van der Wilt H (2011) Universal Jurisdiction under Attack: An Assessment of African Misgivings Towards International Criminal Justice as Administered by Western States. JICJ 9(5):1043–1066
Google Scholar
van der Wilt H (2013) Domestic Courts’ Contribution to the Development of International Criminal law: Some Reflections. ILR 46(2):207–231
Google Scholar
van Schaack B, Slye RC (2010) International Criminal Law and its Enforcement: Cases and Materials, 2nd edn. Thomas Reuters, FP, NY
Google Scholar
van Steenberghe R (2011) The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute: Clarifying its Nature. JICJ 9(5):1089–1116
Google Scholar
Vandeginste S (2012) Reviewing Siebert-Fohr A (2009) Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations. OUP, Oxford. In: LJIL 25(1):239–243
Google Scholar
Ventura MJ (2015) The Duty to Investigate Zimbabwe Crimes Against Humanity (Torture) Allegations: The Constitutional Court of South Africa Speaks on Universal Jurisdiction and the ICC Act. JICJ 13(4):861–889
Google Scholar
Wahid Hanna M (2008) A Historical Overview of National Prosecutions for International Crimes. In: Bassiouni MC (ed) International Criminal Law: International Enforcement, Vol. III, 3rd edn. MNP, Leiden, p. 297–328
Google Scholar
War Crimes Act (1999) Act Concerning the Punishment of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian law, Belgium
Google Scholar
Watson GR (1993) The Passive Personality Principle. TILJ 28(1):1–46
Google Scholar
Webb P (2012) Human Rights and the Immunities of State Officials. In: de Wet E, Vidmar J (eds) Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights. OUP, Oxford, pp. 114–147
Google Scholar
Weeramantry CG (2004) Universalising International Law. MNP, Leiden
Google Scholar
Weiss P (2007) The Future of Universal Jurisdiction. In: Kaleck W, Ratner M, Singelnstein T, Weiss P (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 29–36
Google Scholar
Wetboek van Strafvordering (1969) Code of Penal Procedure, the Netherlands
Google Scholar
Weyembergh A (2013) Transverse Report on Judicial Control in Cooperation in Criminal Matters: The Evolution from Traditional Judicial Cooperation to Mutual Recognition. In: Ligeti K (ed) Towards a Prosecutor for the European Union, Volume I, A Comparative Analysis. Modern Studies in European law, HP, Bloomsbury, pp. 945–985
Google Scholar
Wiebelhaus-Brahm E (2011) Truth Commissions. In: Schabas WA, Bernaz N (eds) Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law. Routledge, T & F, London and NY, pp. 369–383
Google Scholar
Wise EM (1993) The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute. ILR 27(1–2):268–287
Google Scholar
Xenos D (2012) The Positive Obligations of the State under the European Convention on Human Rights. Routledge Research in Human Rights Law, Routledge, T & F, London/NY
Google Scholar
Yabasun D, Holvoet M (2013) Seeking Asylum Before the International Criminal Court. Another Challenge for a Court in Need of Credibility. ICLR 13(3):725–745
Google Scholar
Zahar A (2009) Perpetrators and Co-Perpetrators of Genocide. In: Gaeta P (ed) The United Nations Genocide Convention: A Commentary. Oxford Commentaries on International Law, OUP, pp. 139–161
Google Scholar
Zimmermann A (2006) Violations of Fundamental Norms of International Law and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters. In: Tomuschat C, Thouvenin J-M (eds) The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes. MNP, Leiden/Boston, pp. 335–353
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Laws, University of Malta, Valletta, Malta
Christopher Soler

Authors

Christopher Soler
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Soler .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Soler, C. (2019). Aut Dedere Aut Judicare . In: The Global Prosecution of Core Crimes under International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_13

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-335-1_13
Published: 19 September 2019
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-334-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-335-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics