International courts and atrocities in the XXI century
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38180/rpdi.v0i0.311Palabras clave:
Corte Internacional de Justicia, Corte Criminal Internacional, Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, atrocidades, siglo XXI, graves violaciones de los derechos humanos y del derecho internacional humanitario, crímenes internacionalesResumen
Las atrocidades masivas perpetradas en los últimos años del siglo pasado y las cometidas en el siglo XXI han recibido gran atención por parte de una amplia variedad de actores. En efecto, estas violaciones serias de derechos humanos y del derecho internacional humanitario, que constituyen crímenes internacionales, han originado casos ante cortes supranacionales. La ley y/o la práctica de estas cortes dentro de sus respectivos mandatos específicos demuestran que existe un creciente compromiso judicial internacional con la impartición de justicia en escenarios de atrocidades masivas. En este contexto, la principal pregunta de investigación que aborda este artículo es identificar algunas de las principales contribuciones de las cortes internacionales en casos de atrocidades masivas en el siglo XXI. Para esta finalidad, se tienen en cuenta tres cortes supranacionales: la Corte Internacional de Justicia, la Corte Penal Internacional, y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
Citas
Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2002). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia.
Bais, D. (2016). India and the International Criminal Court. Policy Brief Series No. 54, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher. https://www.toaep.org/pbs-pdf/54-bais/
Becker, S. (2010). The objections of Larger Nations to the International Criminal Court. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 81(1-2), 47-64.
Bergsmo, M. et al. (Eds.). (2020). Power in International Criminal Justice. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
Binder, C. (2011). The Prohibition of Amnesties by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. German Law Journal, 12(5), 1203-1229
Cançado Trindade, A. (2001). El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el Siglo XXI. Editorial Jurídica de Chile.
Cançado Trindade, A. (2010). International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Cassese, A. (2005). International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Cassese, A. (2013). International Criminal Law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Chetail, V. (2003). The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross, 85, 235-269.
Contesse, J. (2017). The international authority of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A critique of the conventionality control doctrine. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(9), 1168-1191.
Contesse, J. (2019). Case of Barrios Altos and La Cantuta v. Peru. American Journal of International Law, 113(3), 568-574.
Cornejo Chavez, L., Pérez-León-Acevedo, J.P., and García-Godos, J. (2019). The Presidential Pardon of Fujimori: Political Struggles in Peru and the Subsidiary Role of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 13(2), 328-348.
Cryer, R. et al. (Eds.). (2019). An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
De Vos, C. (2020). Complementarity, Catalysts, Compliance: The International Criminal Court in Uganda, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cambridge University Press.
Esakov, G. (2017). International Criminal Law in Russia: Missed Crimes Waiting for a Revival. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 15(2), 371-392.
Gargarella, R. (2013). No Place for Popular Sovereignty? Democracy, Rights, and Punishment in Gelman v. Uruguay. SELA papers https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=yls_sela
Gargarella, R. (2015). The Constitutionalization of International Law in Latin America Democracy and Rights in Gelman v. Uruguay. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 109, 115-119.
Goldman, R. (2009). History and Action: the Inter-American Human Rights System and the Role of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 31(4), 856-887.
Grossman, N. et al. (Eds.). (2018). Legitimacy and International Courts. Cambridge University Press.
Heller, K. (2022, March 7). Creating a Special Tribunal for Aggression Against Ukraine Is a Bad Idea. Opinio Juris, https://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/07/creating-a-special-tribunal-foraggression-against-ukraine-is-a-bad-idea/
Jalloh, C. and Bantekas, I. (Eds.). (2017). Introduction. In C. Jalloh and I. Bantekas (Eds.), The International Criminal Court and Africa (pp. 1-9). Oxford University Press.
Kozma, J., Nowak, M., and Scheinin, M. (2010). A World Court of Human Rights: consolidated draft statute and commentary. Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Recht, Studienreihe des Ludwig Boltzmann Instituts fur Menschenrechte.
Mallinder, L. (2016). The End of Amnesty or Regional Overreach?: Interpreting the Erosion of South America’s Amnesty Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(3), 645-680.
McCarthy, C. (2020). Reparation for Gross Violations of Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law at the International Court of Justice. In C. Ferstman and M. Goetz (Eds.), Reparations for Victims of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: Systems in Place and Systems in the Making (2nd ed.) (pp. 350-378). Brill.
McDougall, C. (2022, March 15). Why Creating a Special Tribunal for Aggression Against Ukraine is the Best Available Option: A Reply to Kevin Jon Heller and Other Critics. Opinio Juris, https://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/15/why-creating-a-special-tribunal-for-aggressionagainst-ukraine-is-the-best-available-option-a-reply-to-kevin-jon-heller-and-other-critics/
Nowak, M (2018). A World Court of Human Rights. In G. Oberleitner (Ed.), International Human Rights Institutions, Tribunals, and Courts (pp. 271-290). Springer.
Ochoa Sánchez,J. (2021). Review by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Domestic Reparation Programmes. International Journal of Human Rights, 25(6), 895-924.
Pena, M. and Carayon, G. (2013). Is the ICC Making the Most of Victim Participation?. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 7(3), 518-535.
Pérez-León-Acevedo, J.P. (2008). International criminal law sources in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Some Comparative Considerations. Center for Human Rights of Nuremberg. http://www.menschenrechte.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Inter_am_syst_paper.pdf
Pérez-León-Acevedo, J.P. (2014). Victims’ Status at International and Hybrid Criminal Courts: Victims' Status as Witnesses, Victim Participants / Civil Parties and Reparations Claimants. Abo Akademi University Press.
Pérez-León-Acevedo, J.P. (2016). The Situation of Reparations in the Inter-American Human Rights System and Other International Regimes. American Society of International Law Insights, 20. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/15/situation-reparations-interamerican-human-rights-system-analysis-and
Pérez-León-Acevedo, J.P. (2020). The Control of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights over Amnesty Laws and Other Exemption Measures: Legitimacy Assessment. Leiden Journal of International Law, 33(3), 667-687.
Rhea, H. (2012). The United States and International Criminal Tribunals. Intersentia.
Robb, K. and Patel, S. (2020). The United States, the International Criminal Court, and Afghanistan. International Criminal Law Review, 20(6), 1068-1107.
Rubio-Martin, R. and Sandoval, C. (2011). Engendering the reparations jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The promise of the Cotton Field judgment. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(4), 1062-1091.
Sadat, L. and Drumbl, M. (2016). The United States and the International Criminal Court: A Complicated, Uneasy, Yet at Times Engaging Relationship. St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper Series. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=wlufac
Safferling, C. and Petrossian, G. (2021). Victims Before the International Criminal Court: Definition, Participation, Reparation. Springer.
Salmón, E. (2014). Institutional approach between IHL and IHRL: Current Trends in the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 5(1-2), 152-185.
Salmón, E. and Pérez-León Acevedo, J.P. (2022). Reparations for Victims of Grave Violations of International Humanitarian Law: New Developments. International Review of the Red Cross, 104, 1315-1343
Sandoval, C. (2020). International Human Rights Adjudication, Subsidiarity, and Reparation for victims of Armed Conflicts. In C. Correa et al. (Eds.), Reparation for Victims of Armed Conflict (179-264). Cambridge University Press.
Schabas, W. and McDermott, Y. (2016). Article 67. Rights of the Accused. In O. Triffterer and K. Ambos (Eds.). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (3rd ed.) (pp. 1650-1680) C.H. Beck / Hart / Nomos.
Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts. Oxford University Press.
Simma, B. (2012). Mainstreaming Human Rights: The Contribution of the International Court of Justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 3 (1), 7-29.
Ssenyonjo, M. (2017). African States Failed Withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: From Withdrawal Notifications to Constructive Engagement. International Criminal Law Review, 17(5), 749-802.
Viñuales, J. (2008). The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Environmental Law: A Contemporary Assessment. Fordham International Law Journal, 32 (1), 232-258.
Von Bogdandy, A. et al. (Eds.) (2017). Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Emergence of a New Ius Commune. Oxford University Press.
Werle, G. et al. (2014). Introduction. In G. Werle et al. (Eds.) Africa and the International Criminal Court (pp. 1-12). Springer.
Wirth, S. (2002). Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ’s Judgment in the Congo v. Belgium Case. European Journal of International Law, 13(4), 877–893.
Wouters, J. and De Smet, L. (2003). The ICJ’s Judgment in the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000: Some Critical Observations. Institute for International Law Working Paper No. 27, K.U. Leuven Faculty of Law. https://www.law.kuleuven.be/iir/nl/onderzoek/working-papers/WP27ed2e.pdf
Zappala, S. (2013). Comparative Models and the Enduring Relevance of the AccusatorialInquisitorial Dichotomy. In G. Sluiter et al. (Eds.). International Criminal Procedure: Principles and Rules (pp. 44-54). Oxford University Press.
Zhu, D. (2017). China, Crimes Against Humanity and the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 16(5), 1021-1041.
Jurisprudence and legal documents
European Court of Human Rights, Lexa v. Slovakia, Judgment, Application 54334/00, Judgment, 23 September 2008.
Extraordinary African Chambers, Le Procureur Général c. Habré, Arrêt, Trial Chamber, 30 May 2016.
Extraordinary African Chambers, Le Procureur Général c. Habré, Arrêt, Appeals Chamber, 27 April 2017.
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Case 001, Appeal Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 3 February 2012.
IACtHR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1.
IACtHR, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75.
IACtHR, Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154.
IACtHR, Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162.
IACtHR, Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219.
IACtHR, Case Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221.
IACtHR, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, Concurring Opinion of Judge Diego García-Sayán.
IACtHR, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of March 20, 2013.
IACtHR, Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267.
IACtHR, Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270.
IACtHR, Case of Barrios Altos and La Cantuta v. Peru, Resolución de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Supervisión de cumplimiento de sentencia – Obligación de investigar, juzgar y, de ser el caso, sancionar, 30 de mayo de 2018.
ICC’s Assembly of States Parties, Resolution ICC-ASP/8/Res.9, adopted at the 10th plenary meeting, on 25 March 2010, by consensus, Annex 4 ‘Stocktaking of International Criminal Justice: Complementarity’, Appendix: Report of the Bureau on Stocktaking: Complementarity: Taking Stock of the Principle of Complementarity: Bridging the Impunity Gap.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-717, Decision on the confirmation of charges, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 14 October 2008.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-3, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 4 March 2009.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-
, Trial Chamber I, 5 April 2012.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute, Trial Chamber II, 7 March 2014.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Order for Reparations, ICC-01/04-01/06-3129-AnxA, Appeals Chamber, 3 March 2015.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, ICC-01/05-01/08-3343, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Trial Chamber III, 21 March 2016.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15-171, Judgment and Sentence, Trial Chamber VIII, 27 September 2016.
ICC, Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar,
ICC-01/19-27, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar, Pre-Trial Chamber III, 14 November 2019.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gaddafi, ICC-01/11-01/11-695, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Saif AlIslam Gaddafi against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I entitled ‘Decision on the “Admissibility Challenge by Dr. Saif Al-Islam Gadafi pursuant to Articles 17(1)(c), 19 and 20(3) of the Rome Statute”’ of 5 April, Appeals Chamber, 9 March 2020.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, Trial Judgment, Trial Chamber IX, 4 February 2021.
ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, “Report on Prosecutorial Strategy”, 14 September 2006, at https://www.icccpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/D673DD8C-D427-4547-BC69-2D363E07274B/143708/ProsecutorialStrategy20060914_English.pdf
ICJ, Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Merits, Judgment, 11 September 1992.
ICJ, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 14 February 2002.
ICJ, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, 14 February 2002.
ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004.
ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, Judgment, 26 February 2007.
ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation Judgment, 19 June 2012.
ICJ, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), 20 July 2012
ICJ, Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Merits, Judgment, 27 January 2014.
ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Merits, Judgment, 3 February 2015.
ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order, 23 January 2020.
ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Reparations Judgment, 9 February 2022.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadi?, IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, 15 July 1999.
International Law Commission, “Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001”, Report on the work of its fifty-third session (23 April-1 June and 2 July10 August 2001), General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10).
International Law Association, “Complementarity in International Criminal Law”, Sidney Conference, 2018, at: https://www.ila hq.org/index.php/committees
Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v. Kallon and Kamara, Decisions on Challenge to Jurisdiction: Lomé Accord Amnesty, Appeals Chamber, 13 March 2004.
Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-11-01/T/TC, Judgment, Trial Chamber, 18 August 2020.
UN General Assembly, “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, Resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005.
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2022 Juan Pablo Pérez León Acevedo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
