No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
1. Correspondents' Reports is compiled and edited by the Managing Editor, Avril McDonald, primarily from information provided to the YIHL by its correspondents but also drawing on other sources. The research assistance of Jann K. Kleffher is gratefully acknowledged. It does not purport to be a fully inclusive compilation of all international humanitarian law-related developments in every state, reporting in this volume developments mainly since the beginning of 1998 until 1 December 1999 that have come to the Yearbook's attention. Legal developments that were noted in volume 1 of the YIHL are not repeated here. Readers are thus advised to consult this section in conjunction with Correspondents' Reports in volume 1. We apologise for this inconvenience. Some humanitarian law-related developments from 1998 and earlier came to our attention after volume 1 went to press and could not be noted there; for the sake of completeness we have included them here. While the YIHL apologies for any omissions, it cannot accept responsibility for them. Where citations or dates have not been provided, they were not available or obtainable. Where not otherwise specified, comments are by Avril McDonald and Jann Kleffher. The YIHL invites readers interested in becoming correspondents to contact the Managing Editor at A.McDonald asser.nl.
2. Information provided by Professor José Alejandro Consigli, Assistant Professor of Public International Law, University of Buenos Aires, Member of the Institute of International Law of the Argentine Council for International Relations, and Gabriel Valladares, Assistant Professor of International Humanitarian Law, University of Buenos Aires, Member of the Institute of International Law of the Argentine Council for International Relations.
3. There is no guarantee that these projects will become law.
4. See p. 401.
5. Information and comments provided by Professor Tim McCormack, Australian Red Cross Professor of International Humanitarian Law, University of Melbourne, member of the Board of Editors, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law.
6. Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Landmines and on Their Destruction, opened for signature 18 September 1997, 36 ILM (1997) 1507Google Scholar; 1 YIHL (1998) p. 539Google Scholar (entered into force on 1 March 1999). As of 1 October 1999, there were 90 States Parties.
7. Reprinted infra at p. 450
8 . Per Wilcox J, para. 32; see also Whitlam J, para. 56.
9. Per Merkel J, paras. 185–186.
10. Per Merkel J, para. 231.
11. Information and commentaries by Dr. Thomas Desch, Federal Ministry of Defence, Vienna, and Mag. Peter Kustor, Federal Chancellery, Vienna.
12. See 1 YIHL (1998) pp. 410 and 561Google Scholar.
13. See 1 YIHL (1998) pp. 410–411Google Scholar.
14. ‘Iraqi Official Accused in Austria’, Associated Press, 16 08 1999Google Scholar; ‘Saddam Deputy Escapes Arrest in Austria for Torture Crimes’, The Independent, 19 08 1999Google Scholar.
15. Information provided by Professor Eric David, Centre de droit international, Institut de Sociologie, Brussels.
16. Unofficial translation reprinted infra at p. 539.
17. Unofficial translation reprinted infra at p. 475.
18. See under UK, infra p. 419; for analysis of these decisions, see C. Warbrick et al., p. 91.
19. He was, however, to do so subsequently.
20. An American jurisdiction has resorted to this argument to reject the exception relied on by General Noriega, Panama's former Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, prosecuted in the US for drug trafficking, money laundering, racketeering, etc., who claimed sovereign immunity granted to foreign heads of state. The jurisdiction argued that Noriega had never been recognised as a lawful head of state by the US (US Distr. Crt., S.D. Fla., US v. Noriega and Others, 8 06 1990Google Scholar, 99 ILR, pp. 161 and 162Google Scholar). By the same token, in the Lafontant v. Aristide case, the Court approached the issue of the immunity of the Haitian head of state in terms of his recognition as a lawful head of state by the US (US Distr. Crt, EDNY, 27 January 1994, 103 ILR p. 587Google Scholar).
21. Cf., Salmon, Jean, ‘La jurisprudence belge en matière de reconnaissance’, in Liber Amicorum Elie Van Bogaert (Antwerpen, Kluwer Rechtswetenschappen 1985) p. 235Google Scholar.
22. Translated from ‘Position de principe du gouvernement belge’, reprinted in ‘La pratique du pouvoir exécutif et le contrôle des chambres législatives en matière de droit international’, 1 Revue belge de Droit International (1976) p. 339Google Scholar.
23. Shortly after the Chilean coup, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a press release ‘following rumours according to which Belgium is alleged to have recognised the new Chilean regime’, in which he voiced a reminder that ‘in accordance with the diplomatic practice prevailing in most European countries, Belgium does not recognise governments or regimes […]; consequently, a change of government in a state recognised by Belgium has no legal effect upon the recognition of the state’ (transl. from Chronique n° 940, 1 Revue belge de Droit International (1975) p. 351Google Scholar).
24. Cf., the Secretary-General's Report, drawn up in conformity with para. 2 of SC Res. 808 (1993) presented on 3 May 1993 (S/25704), which comprises proposals relative to the establishment of a court for former Yugoslavia (§55).
25. Cf., notably the Nuremberg judgment (Procès des grands criminels de guerre devant le Tribunal militaire international, Doc. Off. (Nuremberg 1947) Vol. I, p. 235Google Scholar).
26. Cf, Art. 7 of the project for a code relative to war crimes, crimes against peace or against humanity approved in 1996 (Rapport de la C.D.I. sur les travaux de sa 48ème session, 6 mai–26 juillet 1996, A.G., Doc. Off., 51 session, Suppl. n° 10, (A/51/10), pp. 56 et seq).
27. David, E., Eléments de droit pénal international, 7th edn. (Brussels, Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles 1994Google Scholar) n° 13.300 et seq.
28. Art. 5 of the Statute of the ICTY and Art. 3 of the Statute of the ICTR.
29. Arts. 5 and 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
30. Cf., Art. 11(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Art. 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
31. Loi du 22 mars 1996 relative à le reconnaissance du Tribunal penal international pour I'ex-Yougoslavie et du Tribunal pour le Ruanda, et à la cooperation avec ces Tribunaux, Moniteur belge, 27 avril 1996.
32. Exposé des motifs du projet de loi d'approbation de loi Convention sur le Genocide, Doc. Parl., Chambre 1950, 201–1, 4.
33. Cf., David, E., ‘L'actualité de Nuremberg’, in Le procès de Nuremberg: Conséquences et actualisation. Actes du Colloque international, 27 mars 1987 (Brussels, Bruylant/Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles 1988) paras. 61, 80 and 105Google Scholar.
34. Glaser, S., Droit international pénal conventionnel (Brussels, Bruylant 1970) p. 24Google Scholar.
35. Labrin, J. Burneo and Bosly, H.-D., Comment on the Ruling of the Examining Judge, 6 11 1998, ‘La notion de crime contre I'humanité et le droit pénal interne’, Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie (1999) p. 291Google Scholar.
36. The notion has, however, entered into Belgian internal law. It has been established by the Law of 16 June 1993 relative to the punishment of serious violations of the international Conventions of Geneva of 12 August 1949 and to the Protocols I + II of 8 June 1977 additional to these Conventions (reprinted at p. 541 of this volume) as well as by the Law of 13 April 1995 regarding the human slave trade and child pornography.
37. From the same perspective, cf., Ratner, S.R., ‘The Schizophrenias of International Criminal Law’, 33 Texas ILJ (1998) p. 255Google Scholar, and ref. to Demjanjuk; Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) at pp. 20–21, UN Doc. S/1994/674 (1994); Osofsky, H.M., ‘Domesticating International Criminal Law: Bringing Human Rights Violators to Justice’, 107 Yale LJ (1997) p. 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38. Cf., notably Eichmann Case, Supreme Court of Israel, 29 May 1962, ILR 36, pp. 298–300Google Scholar; Canada, High Court of Justice, 10 July 1997, Regina v. Finta, ILR (1982) p. 444Google Scholar.
39. A.G., Résolution 3074 du 3 décembre 1973.
40. Art. 10 of the Statute of the ICTY; Art. 8 of the Statute of the ICTR; 10th preamble to the Statute of the ICC. On this point, cf, Reydams, L., ‘Universal Jurisdiction over Atrocities in Rwanda: Theory and Practice’, 4 European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (1996) p. 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Cf., notably, Art 213–5 of the French Criminal Code, Art 12 of Israeli law S–710 of 1950, Art 37 of Rwandan law 8/96 of 30 August 1996.
42. Cf, notably, the decision of France's Minister of Foreign Affairs on 15 June 1979 delivered in the Barbie case.
43. Cf, notably, the French Court of Cassation, 26 October 1982, Leguay, Bulletin des arrêts de la Cour de Cassation en matière criminelle, 1982, n° 231Google Scholar, and Cour de Cassation Française, 6 October 1983, Barbie, JDI (1984) pp. 308Google Scholar et seq.
44. Cf, Weyembergh, A., ‘Sur I'Ordonnance de Juge d'Instruction Vandermeersch rendue dans I'affaire Pinochet et le 6 novembre 1998’, 1 Revue belge de droit international (1999)Google Scholar.
45. Doc. Senat., 1 – 749/3 – 1998/1999, (20).
46. Researcher at the Centre for International Law at the Free University of Brussels (U.L.B.).
47. Research assistant at the Institute for European Studies at the Free University of Brussels (U.L.B.).
48. Information provided by Tonia Gillett, office of the High Representative, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ongoing cases and cases currently under appeal are not included due to limited space. They will be included in the forthcoming volumes of the YIHL once completed.
49. Art 144 reads: ‘Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law, orders murders, tortures or inhuman treatment of prisoners of war, including therein biological experiments, causing of great sufferings or serious injury to the bodily integrity or health, compulsive enlistment into the armed forces of an enemy power, or deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial, or who commits some of the foregoing acts, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years or by the death penalty.’
50. The ICL was applied until the new Criminal Codes of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina came into force in November 1998. It is still applied in the Republika Srpska, as the adoption of the new Criminal Codes was delayed by the Republika's National Assembly.
51. Unofficial translation.
52. Art. 142 reads: ‘Whoever in violation of rules of international law effective at the time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders that civilian population be subject to killings, torture, inhuman treatment, biological experiments, immense suffering or violation of bodily integrity or health; dislocation or displacement or forcible conversion to another nationality or religion; forcible prostitution or rape; application of measures of intimidation and terror; taking hostages; imposing collective punishment; unlawful bringing in concentration camps and other illegal arrests and detention; deprivation of rights to fair and impartial trial; forcible service in the armed forces of enemy's army or in its intelligence service or administration; forcible labour, starvation of the population; property confiscation; pillaging; illegal and self-willed destruction and stealing on a large scale of a property that is not justified by military needs; taking an illegal and disproportionate contribution or requisition; devaluation of domestic currency or the unlawful issuance of currency; or who commits one of the foregoing acts, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years or by the death penalty.’
53. Unofficial translation.
54. This is despite the fact that the status as civilians under Geneva IV is determined according to Arts. 4 and 13 and not according to Art. 147.
55. Unofficial translation.
56. ‘Nikola Poplasen amnestied war criminals’, Daily Voice (Bosnian national daily from Sarajevo), 17 05 1999Google Scholar.
57. ‘Cambodia Raises Genocide Charge’, International Herald Tribune, 8 09 1999Google Scholar.
58. Information and comments by Professor William Schabas, University of Quebec at Montreal and Senior Research Fellow, United States Institute of Peace.
59. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96–4-T, 2 September 1998.
60. R.S.C. 1985, C-46.
61. Regina v. Finta, Supreme Court of Canada, 88 C.C.C. 3d 417, 24 March 1994.
62. Roik, Richard, ‘City Man's Hearing Set’, The Edmonton Sun, 28 09 1999Google Scholar; Hum, Peter, ‘Canadian Serb released on bail: Man faces trial in soldier's abduction in Bosnia’, The Ottawa Citizen, 19 05 1999Google Scholar.
63. Information provided by the Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law, ICRC.
64. Information and commentaries provided by Professor Hemán Salinas Burgos, Professor of International Law, University of Santiago, Chile. The case is reprinted at p. 485.
65. Chilean Generals Rebuffed, International Herald Tribune, 23 09 1999Google Scholar.
66. Information provided by Professor Frits Kalshoven, President of the International Fact-Finding Commission; the Embassy of Colombia, The Hague; and Rafael A. Prieto Sanjuán, Ph.D. candidate at University of Paris II, MA (Political science), LL.M.
68. Available at http://www.minjusticia.gov.co:9090/ows-do/43444/434442.htm. One week before, a special commission for the department of Arauca was created by presidential decree n° 2391 of 24 November 1998 [Por el cual se crea la Comisión Interinstitucional de Seguimiento a las Investigaciones que se adelantan por violación a los derechos humanos (Comisión especial para el Departamento de Arauca)]. Published in D.O. No. 43440, 30 November 1998. http://www.minjusticia.gov.co:9090/ows-do/43440/434401.htm.
69. The priority areas of work defined are: fight against illegal armed groups, security of human rights defenders and people under threat, attention to displaced populations, special measures to promote IHL (protection of women and minors, as well as eradication of anti-personnel mines), improvement of the administration of justice, and a national action plan on human rights and IHL.
70. See for example, the Report No. 45/99. Case 11.525 (Roison Mora Rubiano) and the Report No. 46/99. Case 11.531 (Faride Herrera Jaime et al.), both of 9 March 1999, whose friendly settlement implied an act of reparation (compensation and signification). The legal base in the internal order to compensate victims for damages established by some human rights organisations is set up by the Law No. 288 of 5 July 1996 [Por la cual se establecen instrumentos para la indemnización de perjuicios a las victimas de violaciones de Derechos Humanos en virtud de lo dispuesto por determinados órganos internacionales de Derechos Humanos]. Published in the Gaceta del Congreso n 276/96 and D.O. n 42826, 9 July 1996.
71. The most important documents regarding state statements and implementation may be consulted at the Internet site of the Colombian human rights network: http://www.rdh.gov.co.
72. National jurisprudence may be consulted in the Colombian network on human rights and on the Internet site of the judicial branch: http://www.fij.edu.co/homepage.htm.
73. Source: ICRC Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law; available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/WebLAW?OpoenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=6.2#6.2.
74. Art. 4 of the Congolese law. All following references are to the Congolese law unless stated otherwise.
75. Art. 6.
76. Compare Art. 7(1)(h) ICC Statute.
77. Art. 7(1)(j) ICC Statute.
78. Art. 6(k); cf., Art. 7(l)(k) ICC Statute.
79. Art. 10.
80. Arts. 11 and 12.
81. Art. 13.
82. Art. 14.
83. Art. 15. Cf. Article 15(2) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that the prohibition of retroactive legislation does not ‘prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by the community of nations’.
84. Source: ICRC Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law. Available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat.nsf/WebCASE?OpenView&Start=l&Count=30&Expand=5#5.
85. Information and commentaries by Maja Šersić, Professor of International Law, University of Zagreb, Croatia.
86. ‘Croats convicted of war crimes’, BBC World, Europe, 1 06 1999Google Scholar.
87. Information and documents on the trial are available at: http://pubwww.srce.hr/sakic/.
88. See 1 YIHL (1998) pp. 429–30Google Scholar.
89. No. DO-K-141/98.
90. Office of the County Public Prosecutor in Zagreb, Document No. DO-K-141/98, Zagreb, 18 December 1998.
91. The provision reads: ‘Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.’
92. The provision reads: ‘No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.’
93. Office of the County Public Prosecutor in Zagreb, Document Number DO-K-141/98, Zagreb, 8 July 1999.
94. Republic of Croatia, County Court in Zagreb, Office of the President of the Court, Communique 20, 1 October 1999.
95. ‘Croatia targets police chief in war crimes probe’, Reuters, 21 04 1999Google Scholar.
96. Information and commentaries provided by Jan Hladik, Programme Specialist, International Standards Section of the Division of Cultural Heritage, UNESCO, Paris.
97. Source: Amnesty International: The Pinochet case – Universal Jurisdiction and the absence of immunity for crimes against humanity, AI Index: EUR 45/01/99, January 1999, at p. 17.
98. Information and commentary by Mr T. Kerikmäe, LL.M, LL.Lic, lecturer in international law at Tartu University, Estonia.
99. Riigi Teataja (1992) pp. 34, 447Google Scholar.
100. 1 RT (1998) p. 28Google Scholar.
101. 1 RT (1992) pp. 26, 349Google Scholar.
102. 1 RT (1999) pp. 10, 155Google Scholar.
103. 2 RT (1993) pp. 13, 16Google Scholar.
104. Case 3–4–1–1, 10 May 1996.
105. 1 RT (1998) 28Google Scholar.
106. 2 RT (1994) 16/15, 50Google Scholar
107. 2 RT (1995) 7, 32Google Scholar. At the same time, the Regulation contains a special chapter on the protection of cultural heritage.
108. Information and commentaries provided by Professor Paul Tavernier, Centre de Recherches et D'Etudes Sur les Droits de I'Homme et le Droit Humanitaire (CREDHO), Faculté Jean Monet, Université de Paris-Sud.
109. Unofficial English language translation at p. 493 of this volume.
110. The provision reads: ‘Regularly ratified or approved treaties or agreements take superior priority over laws, from the date of their publication, provided that each treaty or agreement is applied by the other party.’
111. ‘France to Prosecute Alleged Nazi’, Associated Press (1 09 1999)Google Scholar.
112. Information and commentaries provided by Sascha Rolf Lüder and Gregor Schotten, Research Associates at the Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict (IFHV), Ruhr-Universität Bochum, and Kleffner, Jann K., Assistant Editor of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian LawGoogle Scholar.
113. Concerning the negotiation and ratification process of the Landmines Convention in Germany, see, Fischer, H., ‘Some Aspects of German State Practice Concerning IHL’, 1 YIHL (1998) pp. 380CrossRefGoogle Scholar et seq. at 329.
114. Antrag der Fraktion der SPD, ‘Abrüstung von Kleinwaffen’, 25 November 1997. Published in Bundestags-Drucksache 13/9248; Antrag der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU und F.D.P., ‘Internationale Kontrolle und Abrüstung von Kleinwaffen’, 4 March 1998. Published in Bundestags-Drucksache 13/10026. For possible international, national and regional measures to be taken, see the Summary Report of the PrepCom — Preparatory Committee for a Global Campaign on the Spread and Unlawful Use of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Meeting of Experts on Arms Availability, Violations of International Humanitarian Law and the Deteriorating Situation of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 11 Humanitäres Völkerrecht — Informationsschriften (1998) pp. 252Google Scholar et seq.
115. Act for Co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of 10 April 1995 [Gesetz über die Zusammenarbeit mil dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für das ehemalige Jugoslawien vom 10. April 1995]. Published in Bundesgesetzblatt (1995) I, pp. 428Google Scholar et seq.
116. Act on International Assistance in Criminal Matters of 23 December 1982 [Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen vom 23. Dezember 1982]. Published in I Bundesgesetzblatt (1994) pp. 1537Google Scholar et seq.
117. Art. 38, para. 3 of the Convention.
118. Memorandum to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 Draft Act [Entwurf eines Gesetzes zu dem Übereinkommen vom 20. November 1989 über die Rechte des Kindes, Denkschrift zu dem Übereinkommen]. Published in Bundestags-Drucksache 12/42, p. 51.
119. Antrag der Fraktion der CDU/CSU, ‘Gegen den Miβbrauch von Kindem als Soldaten’, 26 January 1999. Published in Bundestags-Drucksache 14/310, p. 2; Antrag der Fraktion der PDS, ‘Einsatz von Kindem als Soldaten wirksam verhindern’, 17 March 1999. Published in Bundestags-Drucksache 14/552, p. 1; Antrag der Fraktionen der SPD und Bündnis ‘90/Die Grünen, ‘Gegen den Einsatz von Kindem als Soldaten in bewaffheten Konflikten’, 21 April 1999. Published in Bundestags-Drucksache 14/806, p. 1.
120. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany of 23 May 1949 [Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 23. Mai 1949]. Published in 1 Bundesgesetzblatt (1949) pp. 1Google Scholar et seq.
121. German Penal Code of 15 May 1871 [Strafgesetzbuch vom 15. Mai 1871]. Published in Bundesgesetzblatt (1987) pp. 1160Google Scholar et seq.
122. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948 Act [Konvention über die Verhütung und Bestrafung des Völkermordes vom 9. Dezember 1948]. Published in Bundesgesetzblatt (1954) II, pp. 730Google Scholar et seq.
123. In another recent case, the Federal Supreme Court rejected such a link. Bundesgerichtshof, Beschluβ vom 11. Dezember 1998 – 2 ARs 499/98.
124. BGH-Ermittlungsrichter, Beschluβ vom 13. Februar 1994 — BGs 100/94.
125. The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94–IT, Judgment of 15 July 1999, at paras. 137 and 145.
126. Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [Genfer Abkommen vom 12. August 1949]. Published in Bundesgesetzblatt. (1954) II, pp. 783Google Scholar et seq.
127. See for example, Wolfrum, R., ‘The Decentralized Prosecution of International Offences Through National Courts’, in Dinstein, Y., and Tabory, M., eds., War Crimes in International Law (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1996) pp. 233Google Scholar et seq., at 236.
128. Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 [Zusatzprotokolle zu den Genfer Abkommen vom 12. August 1949 über den Schutz der Opfer bewqffneter Konflikte vom 8. Juni 1977]. Published in Bundesgesetzblatt (1990) II, pp. 1551Google Scholar et seq.
129. See also, Ambos, K., ‘Aktuelle Probleme der deutschen Verfolgung von ‘Kriegsverbrechen’ in Bosnien-Herzegowina’, 19 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1999) pp. 226Google Scholar et seq.
130. Staatsanwaltschaft Dortmund – 45 Js 2/97.
131. Military Penal Code of 10 October 1940 [Militärstrafgesetzbuch vom 10. Oktober 1940]. Published in Reichsgesetzblatt (1940) pp. 1347Google Scholar et seq.
132. Staatsanwaltschaft Dortmund–45 Js 1/97.
133. Art 25 of the Charter as ratified by Necessity Law 585/1945, GG A 242 and 286.
134. See for instance, Stavridi, Jenny, ‘Actes et positions de la Grèce en 1997, Implementation by Greece of Security Council Resolutions adopted within the framework of Chapter VII of the UN Chapter’, 50 RHDI (1997) pp. 290–291Google Scholar;idem, 51 RHDI (1998).
135. On the particulars of this procedure see Gavouneli, M., ‘The introduction and implementation of UN Security Council resolutions in the Greek legal system’, 51 RHDI (1998) pp. 219–230Google Scholar.
136. Among them, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea, Venezuela and Singapore; see Report of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, A/53/219, S/1998/737, 10 August 1998 [http://www.un.org/icty/rapportan/rapport5-e.htm].
137. See para. 4 of Res. 827/1993 and para. 2 of Res. 955/1995. This was also per President Cassese in ICTY, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94–1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, paras. 33–36; see also ICTR, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kanyabashi, Case No. ICTR-96–15-T, Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction, 18 June 1997, 18 HRLJ (1997) pp. 343–347Google Scholar.
138. On the status of international law in the Greek legal order see Roucounas, Emmanuel, Grèce, in Eisemann, Pierre-Marie, ed., L'intégration du droit international et communautaire dans I'ordre juridique national (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1996) pp. 287–315Google Scholar.
139. For instance, the procedure for the execution of arrest warrants is described in Rule 55(B) whereas Rule 40bis provides for the provisional arrest and detention of suspects and their transfer to the Tribunal.
140. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95–14-T, para. 8. Decision on the objection of the Republic of Croatia to the issuance of subpoena duces tecum, 18 July 1997.
141. See also the President's Memorandum on the Obligation of States to Pass Legislation Implementing the Tribunal's Statute, March 1996 and most recently a letter dated 8 September 1998 from the President of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1998/839.
142. The truth of the matter seems to be that the necessary preparatory acts had been concluded a long time in advance and the bill was presented to Parliament without updating.
143. Art. 11 of the Statute.
144. In ordinary criminal investigations the procedure before the Judicial Councils constitutes a phase of the pre-trial stage. Once the ordinary investigation is completed, the prosecutor reports to the Judicial Council with a motion either to refer the case to trial or to acquit the defendant For a general overview of the Greek criminal procedure system see Spinellis, Dionyssios D., ‘Criminal Law and Procedure’ in Kerameus, Konstantinos D. and Kozyris, Phaedon J., eds., Introduction to Greek Law, 2nd edn. (Deventer, Kluwer 1993) pp. 339–365, 359Google Scholar.
145. Art. 93(3) of the Constitution.
146. See also Photini Pazartzis, Loi no. 2665/1998. Application des résolutions 827/25–5–1993 et 955/8–11–1994 du Conseil de sécurité de I'organisation des Nations Unies instituant deux Tribunaux pénaux intemationaux chargés de juger des violations graves du droit international humanitaire commis sur les territoires de l'ex Yougoslavie et du Rwanda, 52 RDHI (1999)Google Scholar.
147. A case of mistaken identity was already addressed by the ICTY Prosecutor: Case No. IT-95–8-T, Decision, Order for the Withdrawal of the Charges against the Person named Goran Lajić and for his Release, 17 June 1996.
148. In spite of the fact that the criminality of conduct brought to the attention of the International Tribunal is to be judged solely on the basis of international law; ILC, Report to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/47/10, Annex; UN Doc. A/48/10, Annex 4.
149. Art. 13 para. 2(b) of Law 2665/1998.
150. See Gavouneli, Maria, Military Criminal Code, 1 YIHL (1998) pp. 445–449Google Scholar.
151. Ratified by Legislative Decree 3091/1954.
152. Ratified by Law 3481/1956.
153. Ratified by Law 1786/1988.
154. Ratified by Law 2015/1992.
155. Indeed, going even further, in a formulation to be found in all Greek Constitutions since the independence of the modern Greek State, Art 5(2)(b) of the Constitution stipulates: ‘The extradition of a foreigner, prosecuted for its activity for freedom, is prohibited.’
156. Art 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
157. Art. 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
158. Arts. 224–228 of the Criminal Code.
159. See most recently Decision of Trial Chamber I on the protective measures for General Philippe Morillon, witness of the trial chamber, 12 May 1999.
160. ICTY Doc. CC/PIU/258–E, 7 November 1997.
161. These include the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Spain and Austria.
162. Art 27 of the Statute and Rules 103–104 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
163. See for instance, Rules of Detention, Rev. 7, 17 November 1997; Regulations to govern the supervision of visits to and communications with the detainees, Rev. 3, July 1999. A similar agreement has been concluded between the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Committee of the Red Cross on procedure of visiting persons held on the authority of the Tribunal, IRRC no. 311 (1996) p. 238Google Scholar.
164. Art 53 of the Criminal Code.
165. Art. 52 of the Criminal Code.
166. Art 24 para. 1 of the Statute.
167. Greece ratified the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Optional Protocol and the Second Optional Protocol thereto on the Abolition of the Death Penalty by Law 2462/1997, Art 2 of which contains a reservation as to the availability of the death penalty in times of war and only for an extremely grave offence of a military nature.
168. Information and commentary provided by Péter Kovács, Professor of International Law, Péter Pázmány Catholic University of Budapest and Miskolc University, Hungary. Unofficial translations of the decisions have been made by Professor Kovács.
169. The Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure recognises the ‘revision’ of a res judicata in case of an error in law committed by the Court of final instance (§ 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The revision can be proposed by the condemned, his counsel or (in case of a death in custody) a family member or his attorney (§ 284(A)). The Revision Panel is normally composed of three Judges of the Supreme Court. It is composed of five Judges of the Supreme Court if the challenged sentence was passed by the Supreme Court (§ 287). If the Revision Panel declares the motion to be well-founded, the penal procedure should be relaunched at the first instance (§ 291). In this case, the revision was formally initiated by the Office of the Chief State Attorney.
170. The quoted excerpts of the Supreme Court decisions are the same in all three cases.
171. Art 1 provides:
1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Art. 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Art 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and conceited military operations and to implement this Protocol.
2. This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.
172. Sarah Khan is with the Indian Red Cross Society.
173. Information and comment by Mehrdad Rezaeian, Director for International Affairs, Dadpajooh Institute for legal studies and services.
174. Verbatim Records of the Islamic Consultative Assembly annexed to the Official Gazette of the Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 15270, 8 June 1997, p. 38.
175. Ibid. p. 34.
176. Information provided by Professor Colm Campbell, University of Ulster and Mr Ray Murphy, National University of Ireland, Galway.
177. The Geneva Conventions Act 1962 (‘the Principal Act’), the Red Cross Act 1954 and the Prisoner of War and Enemy Aliens Act 1956.
178. Information provided by BTselem.
179. Jewish name for West Bank.
180. Cf., a Palestinian view on the draft law, infra p. 394.
181. Information provided by Professor Sergio Marchisio and the staff of the Institute) di Studi Giuridici sulla Comunita' Internazionale (ISGCI), Rome.
182. Liano Pecorano is a consultant at ISGCI, Rome.
183. See Lupi, N., ‘Report by the Enquiry Commission on the Behaviour of Italian Peace-Keeping Troops in Somalia’, 1 YIHL (1998) p. 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
184. Fabio Raspadori is a researcher at the ISGCI, Rome and a part-time professor of human rights at the University of Perugia.
185. Mario Carta is a consultant at the ISGCI, Rome and part-time professor at the European Communities Law programme of the School of the Ministry of the Interior, Rome.
186. Derechos Human Rights, Press Release, 21 May 1999. More information on the case is available in Spanish at: http://www.derechos.org/lidlip/grusol/.
187. Law No. 1739 of 27 October 1951 for the Conventions; Law No. 762 of 11 December 1985 for the Protocols.
188. Information and commentaries provided by Professor Hideyuki Kasutani, Professor of International Law, Setsunan University, Japan.
189. For a similar finding by a US court, see infra p. 427.
190. Reprinted in an unofficial English translation at p. 552 of this volume.
191. ‘Former Latvian KGB official gets 7-year jail term for genocide’, Agence France Press, 27 09 1999Google Scholar.
192. Information and commentary by Elies van Sliedregt, Research Fellow, University of Tilburg.
193. Wet Oorlogsstrafrecht, 10 July 1952.
194. Supreme Court of the Netherlands (De Hoge Raad der Nederlanden). Decision No. 13698, 10 November 1989. NJ (1991) p. 248Google Scholar (with annotation by Professor Kooymans) and NYIL (1991) p. 453Google Scholar.
195. Information and commentaries by Professor Tim McCormack, supra note 5.
196. The original Act gives effect to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, 1973 and the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages 1979.
197. Information and commentaries provided by Mustafa Man, LL.B.; LL.M.; Researcher, Peace Processes Project, National University of Ireland, Galway; Head of the Legal Department of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights (PICCR). Formerly, Head of the Legal Department of Al-Haq, West Bank Affiliate of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists.
198. Jewish name for West Bank.
199. For a detailed examination of the Israeli draft law see Mari, Mustafa and Pujara, Munir, In Light Of The Israeli Draft Law On Denying Compensation To Palestinians: Accountability Of The Israeli Occupier For Violations Of Palestinians' Rights (Ramallah, Al-Haq 1998)Google Scholar.
200. For an Israeli perspective on this draft law, see Israeli report, supra p. 383.
201. See Alon, Gideon, ‘Government yanks “Intifada law” for rewrite’, Haaretz, 21 07 1998Google Scholar.
202. See supra p. 384
203. See Mari, Mustafa, ‘Guarantees for Respect of Human Rights in Palestine: Present Problems and Future Prospects’, (Jerusalem, LAWE 1997) pp. 25–27Google Scholar. See also Bevis, Linda, ‘Applicability of Human Rights Law to Occupied territories: The Case of the Occupied Palestinian Territories’, (Ramallah, Al-Haq 1994)Google Scholar.
204. For details and thorough discussion of these and other forms of violations of the rights of Palestinians committed by Israeli occupation forces, see publications by human rights organizations, including A Nation Under Siege: Al-Haq's annual report on Israel's violations of human rights in the OPTs (Ramallah, Al-Haq 1989)Google Scholar; Punishing A Nation (Ramallah: Al-Haq, 1988)Google Scholar, Protection Denied, (Ramallah, Al-Haq 1991)Google Scholar and “Awda' motaghairah wa intihakat mostamirah” (Changing context and continuing violations), (Ramallah, Al-Haq 1995)Google Scholar.
205. See for example Elon Moreh case, High Court case 390/79, reported in 1 Palestine Yearbook of International Law (1984) pp. 134–157, especially at p. 156Google Scholar.
206. The issue of providing training for the Palestinian police force proved controversial during the past few years since establishment of the PNA. Many NGOs working in the field of strengthening the rule of law and promotion of human rights stress the importance of such training, but argue that the government is duty bound to provide it for members of the police force. Others, while agreeing in principle with the said argument, have taken a more pragmatic approach, in order to accommodate the dire need for such training during the period of transition. Example of die first category of NGOs is Law Society and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, while the PICCR falls in the second category.
207. Information and commentaries provided by Professor Alfonso Velázquez, Professor of International Law, Catholic University of Asunción.
208. Information and commentaries provided by Professor Alberto T. Muyot, Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law and the Director of the Institute of Human Rights, and Vincent Pepito F. Yambao, Jr., a junior researcher at the Institute. The two prepared the Philippines Country Report on Customary International Law commissioned by the ICRC.
209. The contents of the Memorandum of Agreement is deemed highly confidential to ‘ensure effective implementation of the release procedure and the safety of the captives and their custodians’.
210. Hereafter cited as CARHRIHL.
211. The Hague Joint Declaration provided that (a) formal peace negotiations between the GRP and the NDF shall be held to resolve the armed conflict; (b) the common goal of the aforesaid negotiation shall be the attainment of a just and lasting peace; (c) such negotiations shall take place after the parties have reached agreement on substantive issues in the agreed agenda through the reciprocal working committees to be separately organized by the GRP and the NDF; (d) the holding of the peace negotiations must be in accordance with mutually acceptable principles, including national sovereignty, democracy and social justice and no precondition shall be made to negate the inherent character and purpose of the peace negotiations; (e) preparatory to the formal negotiations, the parties have agreed to recommend specific measures of goodwill and confidence-building to create a favorable climate for peace negotiations.
212. Ibid., Part IV, Art. 2.
213. Ibid., Part IV, Art. 4 (5)
214. Ibid., Part V.
215. Ibid., Part IV, Art 14.
216. The Question of Releasing Prisoners of War is Necessary and Appropriate Subject in Peace Negotiations. NDFP Press Statement (18 March 1999). In the said document, the NDFP stated that the ‘taking of the prisoners of war is a legitimate and necessary part of the war between the armies of the GRP and the NDFP’. The NDFP likewise stated that the captives are afforded ‘respect and treatment required by international humanitarian law’. [http:/www.geocities.com/~cpp-ndf7/]
217. Op. cit at p. 397.
218. Ibid.
219. Office of the President Presidential Statement on the Release of Abducted Government Personnel (22 03 1999)Google Scholar.
220. Lopez, A., ‘Mindanao's Chance’, Asia Week, 5 03 1999, p. 26Google Scholar.
221. According to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), about 52,000 people from Matanog, Datu Piang, Shariff Aguak and other towns were forced from their homes because of the said encounters. Officials of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) estimated that as many as 90,000 to 100,000 persons had sought refuge in evacuation centers.
222. Resolution No. 3 (24 October 1998).
223. The Quick Response Team was established ‘on account of the confrontations/conflicts on the ground between the elements of the GRP and the MILF despite the Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities (AGCH) signed by the GRP and the MILF Panels on 18 July 1997 in Cagayan de Oro City’.
224. See also Letter to Colonel Denwill Lee, Chief, JUSMAG Philippines, from Captain Arteraio Arugay, DCS for Plans, 2 October 1995.
225. See also Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, AFP, from CapL Artemio Arugay, DCS for Plans, J5, Re: On Landmines Production Issue, 2 October 1995.
226. CARHRIHL, Part III, Art. 2(15)
227. Art. I sec. 3(a). Implementing Operational Guidelines of the GRP-MILF Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities, 14 November 1997.
228. Sec. 3, A.O. No. 387 (24 March 1998).
229. Information and commentaries provided by Professor Igor Blishchenko, Professor of International Law, Russian University of Friendship, Moscow, and Associate Professor Jose Doria, Russian University of Friendship, Moscow.
230. Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council, S/1999/836, p. 2, para. 7.
231. Information provided by Professor John Dugard, Professor of Public International Law, University of Leiden, the Netherlands; member of the International Law Commission; associate member of the Institute of International Law; member of the board of editors, YIHL.
232. Information and commentary by Antoni Pigrau i Solé, Professor of Public International Law, Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain.
233. The following is a list of some of the extant documents and decisions of Spanish Judges concerning events in Chile and Argentina. It is not complete; references for orders from the period February 1997 to August 1998 are missing.
234. Reprinted in excerpted form at p. 515 infra.
235. Reprinted infra at p. 505.
236. 6 Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial 1 July 1985, Boletín Oficial del Estado, No. 157 of 2 July and No. 264 of 4 November. BOE is the official publication of legislation passed and public notices and appointments.
237. Ley Orgánica [Criminal Code Act] 10/95 of 23 November.
238. See also 1 YIHL (1998) pp. 502–505 and 636–640Google Scholar.
239. Spain acceded to the Genocide Convention on 13 September 1968; BOE, 8 February 1969.
240. Spain ratified the Torture Convention on 19 October 1987; BOE, 9 November 1987.
241. See Colin Warbrick, Elena Martin Salgado and Nicholas Goodwin, in this volume supra at p. 9.
242. Information provided by Anne-Marie La Rosa, International Labour Office, Freedom of Association Branch, Geneva and A.D. Henchoz, Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs, Bern. The report covers 1998 only; 1999 developments will be covered in YIHL Vol. 3.
243. See 1 YIHL (1998) p. 510Google Scholar.
244. For analysis, see Rowe, at p. 307 of this volume
245. For analysis see Warbrick, etal. at p. 91
246. Reprinted at p. 472 infra.
247. Reprinted infra at p. 439.
248. DoD Directive 5100.77, ‘DoD Law of War Program’, 10 July 1979, reprinted infra at p. 534.
249. Reprinted infra at p. 449.
250. For example, the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union delegated part of their national jurisdiction over Nazi war crimes to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in the 1945 London Agreement.
251. 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995).
252. Ibid., at p. 239.
253. A similar finding was reached by a court in Japan. See supra pp. 390 et seq.
254. Bonner, Raymond, ‘Civil Action Accuses Yugoslavs of War Crimes’, New York Times, 26 05 1999Google Scholar.
255. War Criminal Deportation Bill OK'd', Associated Press, 4 11 1999Google Scholar; Fainaru, Steve, ‘New pursuit seen on war criminals living in US’, Boston Globe, 29 10 1999Google Scholar.
256. Information provided by the ICRC Advisory Service.
257. Reprinted infra p. 558.