1 David, Eric, “L'actualite juridique de Nuremberg”, in Le Procès de Nuremberg: Conséquences et actualisation, Actes du Colloque international, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 27 March 1987, Editions Bruylant, Brussels, 1988, p. 168Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., p. 171.

3 Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet, (1999) 381ILM 581 (UK House of Lords) [hereinafter Pinochet Case]; see Brody, Reed and Ratner, Michael (eds), The Pinochet Papers: The Case of Augusto Pinochet in Spain and Britain, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000, p. 40 [hereinafter Brody and Ratner]Google Scholar.

4 A very useful — and rare — definition of “impunity” reads as follows: “Impunity means the impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of human rights violations to account — whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings — since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, convicted, and to reparations being made to their victims”: “The administration of justice and the human rights of detainees: Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Violations (Civil and Political)”, Final Report prepared by Mr Joinet Pursuant to Sub-Commission decision 1996/119, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20, 26 June 1997, Annex II, pp. 13–14 [hereinafter Joinet Report]. The definitional section of the document also refers to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as being “serious crimes under international law”. Ibid., p. 15.

5 Due to lack of space, this article will not cover truth commissions as a non-penal mechanism in the fight against impunity. For a comprehensive review of the issue, see Hayner, Priscilla B., Unspeakable Truths: Confronting State Terror and Atrocity, Routledge, London, 2001Google Scholar. See also Joinet Report, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 14–17.

6 See Report of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, 1–31 August 1951, UN Doc. A/2136 (1952); see generally Report of the 1953 Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, 27 July-20 August 1953, UN Doc. A/2645 (1954).

7 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 [hereinafter ICC or ICC Statute].

8 The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995 [hereinafter Tadic Jurisdiction Decision],

9 The more specific and related provisions would be Article 2 of the ICTY's Statute — Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 — which, according to the Tadic jurisdiction Decision, ibid., may be applied only to acts perpetrated in a conflict that has been established to be international.

10 Boelaert-Suominen, Sonja, “The Yugoslavia Tribunal and the Common Core of Humanitarian Law Applicable to Alt Armed Conflicts”, Leiden journal of International Law, Vol. 13, Issue 3, 2000, pp. 630–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 As Boelaert-Suominen points out, “this jurisprudence shows that war crimes charges based on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions have a corollary in war crimes charges based on Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions”. Thus, for example, several ICTY Trial Chambers have ruled that there is no qualitative difference between the terms “wilful killing” as a grave breach and “murder” as used in common Article 3. Similarly, the grave breach of “inhuman treatment” corresponds to “cruel treatment” within the meaning of common Article 3. Ibid., pp. 637–638.

12 See Milosevic Case (IT-01–51), Case Information Sheet (CIS), 26 November 2001, <http://www.un.org/icty/glance/milosevic.htm> as well as CIS of 9 and 29 October (IT 01–50 resp. 99 37 I).

13 For Milosevic's possible strategy in terms of legal assistance, see Klarin, Mirko, “Analysis: Milosevic to put NATO on Trial”, IWPR's Tribunal Update, No. 248, 10–15 December 2001, <http://www.iwpr.net>Google Scholar.

14 See Address to the United Nations Security Council by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Mrs Carla Del Ponte, 27 November 2001, <http://www.ictr.org/ENGUSH/speeches/delponte271101sc.htm>.

15 Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for Washthe Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, as adopted by the National Assembly on 2 January 2001, <http://www.phnompenhdaily.com/06.01.01.htm>; see also Articles of Cooperation Between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia [in/Concerning] the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh Post, Issue 9/22, 27 October–9 November 2000, <http://www.phnompenhpost.com> (both texts on file with the author).

16 See Lynch, Colum, “UN Warns Cambodia on War Crimes Tribunal”, The Wash ington Post, 3 February 2001, p. A22Google Scholar; see also Human Rights Watch Press Release, “Core Issues in the Khmer Rouge Tribunal Unresolved”, 21 January 2001, <http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/camb00121.htm>>Google Scholar.

17 See “Khmer Rouge Trial Stalled Over Language”, Reuters, Phnom Penh, 26 November 2001 (on file with the author).

18 Chang, Youk, Director of Documentation Center of Cambodia, quoted in Amy Kazmin and Carola Hoyos, “Cambodia Moves Towards Tribunal of Khmer Rouge”, Financial Times, 23 August 2001, <http://www.globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/>>Google Scholar.

19 See Letter dated 9 August 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2000/786, 10 August 2000.

20 UN Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000), paras 1 and 6, 14 August 2000.

21 Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, UN Doc. S/2000/915, para. 9. The Report, in its Annex, includes a draft Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, and, in Enclosure, a draft Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

22 See Letter dated 22 December 2000 from the President of the Security Council addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2000/ 1234, 22 December 2000; see also Letter dated 12 January 2001 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2001/40, 12 January 2001.

23 Letter dated 12 January 2001 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, op. cit. (note 22).

24 See “Sierra Leone: UN Government sign historic accord to set up special war crimes court”, UN NewsCenter, 16 January 2002, <http://www.un.org./apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=2639ߠCr=SierraߠCrl=court>.

25 ICC Statute, Article 115.

26 Ibid., Article 126(1).

27 For up-to-date ratification status, see Rome Statute Signature and Ratification Chart, <http://www.iccnow.org/rome/html/ratify.html>.

28 See Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Jozias J. Van Aartsen, during the Eighth Session of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, New York, 25 September 2001, <http://www.iccnow.org/html/NetherlandspeechPrepCom8.html>.

29 Ibid.

30 ICC Statute, Article 1. See also ICC Statute, Articles 17–19.

31 The ICC will have jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression (once the latter is defined). See ICC Statute, Article 5.

32 ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(c)(e)(i), (vi) and (viii).

33 ICC Statute, Article 7(1)(h).

34 ICC Statute, Article 7(2)(f) and (i).

35 See Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, Article 1 [hereinafter Convention Against Torture], and Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, GA Res. 47/133, 18 December 1992, preambular para. 3.

36 ICC Statute, Article 43(6).

37 ICC Statute, Article 75.

38 ICC Statute, Article 79.

39 ICC Statute, Article 93(1)(k).

40 See Finalised Draft Text of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1, 2 November 2000, Sub-Section 4, Rules 94 to 99, <http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/rules/rulefra.htm>.

41 “Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, a state is entitled, or even required to bring proceedings in respect of certain serious crimes, irrespective of the location of the crime, and irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. The only connection between the crime and the prosecuting state that may be required is the physical presence of the alleged offender within the jurisdiction of that state”: International Law Association, Final Report on the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offences, Committee on International Human Rights Law and Practice, London Conference, 2000, p. 2 (on file with the author) [hereinafter ILA Report].

42 Ibid., Annex. The Annex contains a review of various cases brought under the principle of universal jurisdiction — before Pinochet's arrest — in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands.

43 France most recently declared admissible a complaint filed by six victims against Tunisian officials, alleging acts of torture, intemaregardless of lack of presence of the alleged perpetrators in French territory. See Comite pour le respect des libertés et des droits de I'homme en Tunisie, line brèche importante dans la lutte contre I'impunité: la plainte déposée en France contre des tortionnaires tunisiens est jugée recevable, Paris, 28 November 1998 (text on file with the author).

44 See Griffin, Mary, “Ending the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Atrocities: A Major Challenge for International Law in the 21st Century”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 838, June 2000, p. 382Google Scholar.

45 Ibid. It should be noted in this context that a Belgian juge d'instruction ruled in Pinochet-related proceedings that a person suspected of having committed crimes against humanity could be brought to justice in Belgium on the basis of customary international law. See Juge d'instruction à Bruxelles, ordonnance, 6 November 1998 (on file with the author), reprinted in Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie, 1999, pp. 278–300.

46 For a review of the Pinochet case, see Brody and Ratner, op. cit. (note 3). See also Crimes Against Humanity: Pinochet Faces Justice, International Commission of Jurists, July 1999.

47 Convention Against Torture, Articles 4, 5 and 7.

48 See Brody and Ratner, op. cit. (note 3), p. 44.

49 For a good review of the principles on immunity as enunciated in the Nuremburg judgment and the normative follow-up, see Amnesty International, The Case of General Pinochet: Universal jurisdiction and the Absence of Immunity for Crimes against Humanity, EUR 45/21/98, October 1998.

50 See Andreu-Guzman, Federico, “L'affaire Pinochet: historique des événements et exposé des incriminations, L'arrêt de la Cour suprême de justice du Chili et perspective du combat judiciaire contre I'impunité”,Paper presented at the Journée d'études: L'immunité penale des gouvernants, FIDH — CEDIN, Assemblée nationale de France, 30 Septemimmunity ber 2000 (on file with the author)Google Scholar.

51 See Kirgis, Frederic, “The Indictment in Senegal of the Former Chad head of State”, ASIL Insights, February 2000, <http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh41.htm>>Google Scholar.

52 ILA Report, op. cit. (note 41), p. 27.

53 République Du Senegal, Cour d'Appel de Dakar, Chambre d'Accusation, Arrêt No. 135, 4 July 2000; see Human Rights Watch, “The Case against Hissene Habre”, <http://www.hrw.org/justice/habre/intro_web2.htm>.

54 Human Rights Watch, “The Case against Hissene Habre”, op. cit. (note 53).

55 See Linda Keller, “Belgian Jury to Decide Case Concerning Rwandan Genocide”, ASIL Insights, May 2001, <http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh72.htm> [hereinafter ASIL Insights].

56 See First Geneva Convention, Article 49(2); Second Geneva Convention, Article 50(2); Third Geneva Convention, Article 129(2); Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 146(2); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, Article 86(1).

57 Convention Against Torture, Article 5.

58 See ILA Report, op. cit. (note 41), p. 12.

59 Loi relative à la répression des infractions graves aux Conventions internationales de Genève du 12 aout 1949 et aux Protocoles I et II du 8 juin 1977, additionels à ces Conventions, 16 lune 1993, Moniteur Belge, 5 August 1993.

60 Loi relative á la répression des violations graves de droit international humanitaire, 10 February 1999, Moniteur Beige, 23 March 1999.

61 See ASIL Insights, op. cit. (note 55).

62 See “Rights Groups Support Belgian Law on Genocide”, Agence France-Presse, Brussels, 26 November 2001. See also “Suit Against Sharon Defended”, International Herald Tribune, 29 November 2001, p. 5.

63 See Press Release by Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), Brussels, 26 November 2001 (on file with the author) [hereinafter Joint Press Release].

64 See “Un sénateur veut restreindre la loi beige sur la compétence universelle”, Agence France-Presse, Brussels, 20 June 2001.

65 See Joint Press Release, op. cit. (note 63).

66 See ILA Report, op. cit. (note 41), pp. 10–19.

67 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 2), Convention Against Torture (Articles 4, 5 and 7), American Convention on Human Rights (Article 1), Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (Article 1), Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torturen (Article 1). See also non-treaty human rights standards such as the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, GA Res. 47/133, 18 December 1992, and the Principles for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, ECOSOC Res. 1989/65, 24 May 1989.

68 For an excellent review of the current state of the law on impunity and the effect of amnesties, see “Argentina: Amicus Curiae Brief on the Incompatibility with International Law of the Full Stop and Due Obedience Laws”, presented by the International Commission of jurists, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch before the National Chamber for Federal Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Republic of Argentina (June 2001), International Commission of Jurists Occasional Papers, 2001, p. 23 [hereinafter ICJ Amicus Brief].

69 See the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14–25 June 1993, A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), Chapter III, Section II, para. 60.

70 See ICJ Amicus Brief, op. cit. (note 68), pp. 30–32 and pp. 36–38.

71 See Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 20 on Article 7, Forty-fourth Session, 1992, para. 15.

72 Joinet Report, op. cit. (note 4), Principle 28(a).

73 Seventh Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, UN Doc. S/1999/836, 30 July 1999, para. 7.

74 UN Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000), preambular para. 5.

75 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Article 10, reads: “An amnesty granted to any person falling within the jurisdiction of the Special Court in respect of the crimes referred to in articles 2 to 4 of the present Statute shall not be a bar to prosecution”.

76 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, Article 6(5).

77 Letter of the ICRC Legal Division to the ICTY Prosecutor of 24 November 1975 and to the Department of Law at the University of California of 15 April 1997 (referring to CDDH, Official Records, 1977, Vol. IX, p. 319)(on file with the author).

78 See generally, ICJ Amicus Brief, op. cit. (note 68). See also Cassel, Douglas, “Lessons from the Americas: Guidelines for International Response to Amnesties for Atrocities”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, School of Law Duke University, No. 4, Autumn 1996, pp. 197–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 See “Argentine Judge Annuls Immunity Laws”, The Associated Press, Buenos Aires, 6 March 2001 (on file with the author). For a background to the case see ICJ Amicus Brief, op. cit. (note 68), pp. 5–9.

80 See “La Camara Federal Confirma: Las leyes de Punto Final y Obediencia Debida son invalidas e inconstitucionales”, Centra de estudos legates y sociales, Archivos de HOY, <http://www.cels.org.ar/background/archivos/info2001/info_45_20011115.htm>.

81 The ICRC's Advisory Service was set up in 1996 to encourage States to ratify international humanitarian law treaties and to fulfil their obligations under those treaties at the national level, including the repression of war crimes. The Advisory Service is attached to the ICRC's Legal Division in Geneva and has a team of legal experts based in each contionaltinent. Further information may be obtained on the ICRC's website at <http://www.icrc.org> or by E-mail at: [email protected]