Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:19:50.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amnesties in the Light of Developments in International Law and the Establishment of the International Criminal Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Jessica Gavron
Jessica Gavron
Affiliation:
Barrister at 9–12 Bell Yard, London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Amnesties presuppose a breach of law and provide immunity or protection from punishment. Historically amnesties were invoked in relation to breaches of the laws of war and were reciprocally implemented by opposing sides in an international armed conflict. The impact of the two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, however, had considerable implications not only for the use of amnesties, but also for their legality under international law. The scale of the First World War precipitated a new phase of unilateral amnesty for the victors and prosecutions of war criminals for the defeated aggressor states.1 This precedent was followed after the Second World War,2 with the establishment of the first ‘international’3 criminal court, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. However, the horrors perpetrated during the Second World War also prompted the development of a branch of international law aimed at recognising and protecting human rights in an attempt to prevent such atrocities being repeated.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 91 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Fania Domb ‘Treatment of War Crimes in Peace Settlements–Prosecution or Amnesty?’, in Dinstein and Tabory (eds), War Crimes In International Law (1996), 305 at 308; Treaty of Peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles), signed at Versailles, 28 June 1919 Martens Nouveau Recueil (3d) 323.

2 Domb above at 308–9; Italian Peace Treaty, 1947 (Israel edn) 4 Major Peace Treaties of Modern History, 1648–1967 (1967) 2421; Bulgarian Peace Treaty 1947 ibid, 2525; Hungarian Peace Treaty 1947 ibid, 2553; Romanian Peace Treaty 1947 ibid, 2585; Finnish Peace Treaty 1947, ibid, 2615.

3 The tribunal at Nuremberg was more multinational than international, established by the principal Allied Powers: France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and United States, although its status as an international tribunal was reinforced by the Charter's ratification by nineteen other nations.

4 Orentlicher ‘Settling Accounts: the Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Previous Regime’, in 100 Yale Law Journal (1991) 2539; Domb above n 1; Roht-Arriaza ‘State Responsibility to Investigate and Punish Human Rights Violations in International Law’ in 78 California Law Review (1990) 449; Scharf ‘The Letter of the Law: The Scope of the International Legal Obligation to Prosecute Human Rights Crime’ in 59 Law and Contemporary Problems (1996) 41.

5 See Cassese ‘On the Current Trends towards Criminal Prosecution and Punishment of Breaches of International Humanitarian Law’ in 9 EJIL (1998) at 5; and Bassiouni ‘International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes’ in 59 Law and Contemporary Problems (1996) 63.

6 Art 49 of the First Geneva Convention, 75 UNTS 31, 62; Art 50 of the Second Geneva Convention ibid, 85, 116; Art 129 of the Third Geneva Convention, ibid, 135, 236; Art 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention ibid, 287, 386. Also Art 85(1) of 1977 Additional Protocol I.

7 The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948, Arts V and VI, 78 UNTS 277.

8 The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, 1973, Arts IV & V.

9 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, 1984 24 ILM 535 (1984).

10 Adopted 16 Dec 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 Mar 1976).

11 Adopted 4 Nov 1950, 213 UNTS 221, Europ TS No 5 (entered into force 3 Sept 1953).

12 Adopted 7 Jan 1970, 9 ILM 673 (1970).

13 Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Inter-Am. Ct HR (ser C) No 4 at paras 166 and 174 (1988) Judgment.

14 See Part IV of the ICCPR above n 10.

15 See below n 40.

16 Buergenthal, ‘The United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador’ 27 Vanderbilt J Trans Law 497, 536.

17 E Leopold, ‘UN Chief Signals Disapproval of Salvadorean Amnesty Reuters’ 24 Mar 1993, in Cassel Lessons From the Americas: Guidelines for International Response to Amnesties for Atrocities in 59 Law and Contemporary Problems (1996) 197 at 225.

18 Declaracion Publica del Director de MINUGUA, 20 Dec 1996, para 5, ibid, at 223.

19 1985/6 Annual Report, 191–3 (1986).

20 Ibid, at 192.

21 Ibid, at 192–3.

22 Ibid, at 193.

23 See above n 13.

24 Ibid, at para 166.

25 Ibid, at para 176.

26 Ibid, at para 184.

27 Alicia Consuela Herrera et al Case No 10.147 Ann Rep Inter-Am Comm H Rts. 1992–3, 41.

28 Las Hojas Massacre Case No 10.287, ibid, at 83.

29 Hugo Leonardo de los Santos Mendoza et al Case No 10.029, ibid, at 154.

30 See generally Pion-Berlin ‘To Prosecute or Pardon? Human Rights Decisions in the Latin American Southern Cone’ 16 HRQ 105; Nino ‘The Duty to Punish Past Abuses of Human Rights Put Into Context: The Case of Argentina’ 100 Yale Law Journal 2619.

31 Comision Nacional Sobre La Desparicion de Personas, Nunca Mas (1984)

32 The ‘Full Stop Law’ Law 23,492, 4 Dec 1986; Law 23,521, 4 June 1987; Presidential Decree of Pardon No. 1002, 7 Oct 1989.

33 See Buergenthal above n 16; Ensalaco ‘Truth Commissions for Chile and El Salvador: A Report and Assessment’ 16 HRQ (1994) 656.

34 Pion-Berlin above n 30.

35 Law No 15,848, Ley de Caducidad de la Pretension Punitiva del Estado, 22 Dec 1986.

36 Pion-Berlin above n 30 at 122.

37 Ibid, at 118, n 36 (Weschler ‘A Reporter at Large’ New Yorker, 65 (10 Apr 1989): 93).

38 Ibid, at 121.

39 Hugo Leonardo above n 29 at para 22.

40 Examples include: Muteba v Zaire (re torture) Comm No 124/1982, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No 40) Annex XIII, UN Doc A/39/40 (1984); Elena Quinteros v Uruguay (re disappearances) Comm No 107/1981, 38 UN GAOR Supp (No. 40) Annex XXII UN Doc A/38/40 (1983).

41 HRC Gen Comm 20, Art 7 (44 sess 1992), UN Doc HRI\GEN\1\Rev 1 at 30 (1994).

42 See S.E. v Argentina GAOR 45th Sess, Supp 40 (A/45/40) Annex XJ Comm No 275/1988 (1990); H.C.M.A. v Netherlands, GAOR 44th Sess Supp 40 (A/44/40) Annex X1B Comm No 213/1986 (1989).

43 Hugo Rodriguez v Uruguay, Comm No 322/1988 Views of 19 July 1994, UNDoc CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988 (1994).

44 See above n 35.

45 See above n 43 at para 12.4.

46 Ibid, at para 14.

47 Ibid at para 12.4.

48 It should be noted that neither body has judicial status, nor are their ‘decisions’ binding on State parties.

49 Protocol Additional II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict, 8 lune 1977, 1125 UNTS 609.

50 Art 1, Protocol II.

51 Art 2(4) and (7), UN Charter.

52 ICRC Commentary on Art 6 of Protocol II of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 at <http//www.icrc.org> at para 4617 and 4618.

53 Letter from Dr Toni Pfanner to Cassel, 15 Apr 1997, reproduced in Cassel above n 17 at 218. NB this letter was written after developments expanding the scope of international humanitarian law applicable to internal conflicts. Such developments were not applicable in 1977 when Protocol II was adopted.

54 Above n 1 at 319.

55 ‘[T]he content of customary international law applicable to internal armed conflict is debatable. As a result … the only offences committed in internal armed conflict for which universal jurisdiction exists are “crimes against humanity” and genocide, which apply irrespective of the conflicts' classification.’ United Nations War Crimes Commission (for Yugoslavia) final report UNDoc S/1994/674, annex, para 42 (1994).

56 Plattner, ‘The Penal Repression of Violations of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Non-International Armed Conflicts’, 30 Int'l Rev Red Cross (1990) 409, 414.

57 ‘According to International Humanitarian Law as it stands today, the notion of war crimes is limited to situations of international armed conflict.’ unpublished comments (25 Mar 1993) see Meron, ‘The Criminalization of Internal Atrocities’, 89 AJIL 554, 559.

58 This is an offence under customary international law only.

59 Hafner, Boon, Rubesame, and Huston, ‘A Response to the American View [re the ICC] as presented by Ruth Wedgewood’ in 10 EJIL 108 (1999) at 111.

60 NB Established under Ch. VII of the Charter, they fall within the exception to Art 2(7).

61 S/RES/713 (1991) of 25 Sept 1991.

62 S/RES/827 (1993) of 25 May 1993.

63 As did the UN War Crimes Commission in its Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), UN Doc S/25274, Ann 1, para 45 (1993)

64 Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Jurisdiction) ILR 105 (1997), 419, para 77.

65 Above n 55.

66 Art 3 includes use of weapons causing unnecessary suffering; destruction of cities etc not justified by military necessity; attack on undefended towns etc; destruction of places of religious, historic etc significance and plunder of property.

67 Tadic above n 64 para 126.

68 See generally Greenwood ‘International Humanitarian Law and the Tadic Case’ 7 EJIL (1996) 265; id, ‘The Development of International Humanitarian Law by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (1998) 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 97; Meron, ‘War Crimes in Yugoslavia and the Development of International Law‘, 88 AJIL 76.

69 S/RES/955 (1994) of 8 Nov 1994.

70 Report of the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc S/1995/134, para 12 (1995).

71 Meron argues that Art 4 whilst innovative, did not create ex post facto offences. See above n 68.

72 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc A/CONF 183/9 (17 July 1998).

73 It omits the nexus to conflict; includes sexual offences, enforced disappearances, and apartheid and requires that the attack be pursuant to a state or organisational policy, thus not confining the offence to state operations.

74 Kirsch and Holmes, ‘The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process’, 93 AJIL (1999) 2 at 7. Also Arasanjani ‘The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, ibid, at 32.

75 The International Law Commission removed the distinction in Art 22 of its Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind 1991. Report of the ILC, 43rd Sess, 46 UN GAOR, Supp No 10 at 270, UN Doc A/46/10 (1991).

76 Art 8(2)(c) and (e).

77 For a critique of the definition of crimes in the ICC Statute see Cassese ‘The Statute of the International Criminal Court: Some Preliminary Reflections’, 10 EJIL (1999) 144 at 150 et seq. Also Bassiouni ‘Negotiating the treaty of Rome on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’; 32 Cornell Int'l Law Journal (1999) 443 at 462 et seq.

78 Philippe Kirsch chaired the Committee of the Rome Conference. Keynote Address, ibid, Cornell Int'l LJ at 437.

79 Exert in Bassiouni above n 77 at 468.

80 UN Doc A/53/1 Annual Report of the Sec-Gen on the Work of the Organisation 1998, 27 Aug 1998, para 180.

81 See UN Doc A/47/975-S/26063 (1993), Report of the Secretary-General on Haiti, reproducing the Governors Island Agreement, July 1993.

82 UN SCOR, 48th Sess, 3298th mtg at 126, UN Doc S/INF/49 (1993).

83 White House Press Briefing on Haiti (19 Sept 1994) US Newswire, 19 Sept 1994. See Scharf ‘Swapping Amnesty for Peace: Was There a Duty to Prosecute International Crimes in Haiti?’ 31 Texas Int'l LJ (1996) 1, 7.

84 See generally: Scharf, ibid, Roth, ‘Human Rights in the Haitian Transition to Democracy’ in Hesse, and Post, (eds), Human Rights in Political Transitions: Gettysburg to Bosnia (Zone Books, 1999), 93.Google Scholar

85 See Scharf above n 83 at 15–16. Loi Relative a L'Amnistie, published in Le Moniteur, Journal Officiel de la Republique d'Haiti, 10 Oct 1994 (Haiti).

86 17 May 2000.

87 Secretary of State Geoff Hoon on BBC news broadcasts 17 May 2000.

88 Holmes, , ‘The Principle of Complementarity in Lee’ (ed), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (Kluwer International, 1999), 60.Google Scholar

89 Above n 59.

90 Art 13, Rome Statute.

91 S/RES/143 of 14 Jul 1960; S/RES/145 of 22 July 1960; S/RES/146 of 9 Aug 1960; S/RES/157 of 17 Sept 1960.

92 Scharf, ‘The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’, 32 Cornell Int'l LJ (1999) 507 at 522.

93 Scharf s interpretation arguably raises a separate issue, independent of Art 16, which is the approach of the Court in circumstances where UN involvement results in a UN brokered amnesty. For a brief discussion of this see p 38 below.

94 The prosecutor then refers his decision to the Pre-Trial chamber for review.

95 UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1996/18, 20 June 1996 at Principle 19.

96 The ICC Statute is not retrospective (Art 11) and therefore could not be applicable to these particular situations. They are referred to by way of example only.

97 See generally Pion-Berlin above n 30; Ensalaco above n 33.

98 Amnesty Decree Law 2.191.

99 Hermosilla et al Inter-Am Comm. H Rts Report No 36/96 Case 10.843 Chile 15 Oct 1996.

100 R v Bow St Magistrates, Ex Parte Pinochet Uguarte (No 1) 1998 4 All ER 897; ibid (No 3) 1999 2 All ER 971.

101 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993.

102 The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34 of 1995.

103 Ibid, s 20.

104 Ibid, s 20(7).

105 Braude and Spitz ‘Memory and the Spectre of International Justice: A Comment on Azapo’ in 13 South African J on HR (1997) 269, 273.

106 ‘Justice or Reconciliation’ The University of Chicago Law School, Center for International Studies Conference, 26 Apr 1997.

107 Azanian Peoples Organisation v President of the Republic of South Africa 1996 (4) SA 671 (CC).

108 Above n 122, Mahmood DP, at para 21.

109 ‘what About Justice?’ Inaugural Bar Human Rights Committee Lecture at St Paul's Cathedral, 1 Nov 1999. Transcripts available from the BHRC.

110 It took 18 months to convict Col Eugene de Kock, head of the apartheid government's Vlakplaas death farm. It cost the State R5,000,000 (nearly £500,000) just for the defence costs to which he was entitled as a former State employee.

111 eg, UNGA Res/36/13 28 Oct 1981 and A/Res/37/47 3 Dec 1982.

112 eg, UNGA Res/48/159 20 Dec 1993.