La autorización para investigar los crímenes cometidos en Afganistán. Luces y sombras de la sentencia, de 5 de marzo de 2020, de la Sala de Apelaciones de la Corte Penal Internacional
-
1
Universidad de Murcia
info
ISSN: 1697-5197
Year of publication: 2020
Issue: 39
Type: Article
More publications in: Revista electrónica de estudios internacionales (REEI)
Abstract
The ICC Appeals Chamber's judgment of 5 March 2020 has found that the Pre-Trial Chamber committed an error of law in its decision of 12 April 2019 denying the Prosecutor authorization to open an investigation into crimes committed in Afghanistan. A conclusion which, being based on the analysis of the first ground of appeal raised, has prevented the Appeals Chamber from clarifying other aspects, in particular, the much-discussed issue of factors to be taken into account when assessing the interests of justice. The Appeals Chamber judgment has highlighted that the Pre-Trial Chamber's decision was based more on speculation than on criminal justice criteria. The Appeals Chamber has offered victims the possibility of having their interests recognized or at least being able to benefit from the assistance of the Trust Fund for Victims.
Bibliographic References
- ORIHUELA CALATAYUD, E., “When are there substancial reasons to believe that an investigation of core crimes would not serve the interest of justice?”, 23 SYIL (2019) 9-30, DOI: 10.17103/syil.23.2
- D. Akande and T. de Souza Dias, “The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber Decission on the Situation in Afghanistan: A Few Thoughts on the Interests of Justice”, ejiltalk, 18 de abril de 2019
- D. Jacobs, “ICC Pre-Trial Chamber rejects OTP request to open an investigation in Afghanistan: some preliminary thoughts on an ultra vires decision”, Post de 12 de abril de 2019, en https://dovjacobs.com/2019/04/12/icc-pre-trial-chamberrejects-otp-request-to-open-an-investigation-in-afghanistan-some-preliminary-thoughts-on-an-ultra-viresdecision/ (last visit October 31 2019)
- P. Labuda, “A Neo-Colonial Court for Weak States? Not Quite. Making Sense of the International Criminal Court’s Afghanistan Decision”, ejiltalk, 13 de abril de 2019
- S. Vasiliev, “Non just another “crisis”: Could the blocking of the Afghanistan investigation spell the end of the ICC? I and II”, ejiltalk
- B. Walton and A. Farhadi, “The ICC and US Retaliatory Visa Measures: Can the UN Do More to Support the Privileges & Immunities of the Prosecutor?, ejiltalk, 23 de abril de 2019
- M. Waraki, “Afghanistan and the “interests of justice”; an unwise exercise?”, ejiltalk, 26 de abril de 2019
- SCHABAS, W.A., The International Criminal Court. A Commentary on the Rome Statute, (2nd ed.), Oxford, 2016, pp. 828-844 (comentario art. 53)
- AMBOS, K y STEGMILLER, I, “Prosecuting International Crimes at the International Criminal Court: Is there a Coherent and Comprehensive Prosecution Strategy?, crime L. Soc. Change, vol 59, 2003
- CÁRDENAS ARAVENA, C., “Revisión del criterio “interés de la justicia” como razón para no abrir una investigación o no iniciar un enjuiciamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional”, Revista de Derecho Universidad Católica del Norte, 2011-1
- DE SOUZA DIAS, T., “Interest of justice: Defining the scope of Prosecutorial discretion in Article 53 (1) (c) and (2) (c) of the Rome Statute of the Internacional Criminal Court, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 30, 2017
- TURRONE, G., “Powers and Duties of the Prosecutor, in A. Cassese, P. Gaeta and J. Jones (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Vol II, Oxford, 2002
- ARSANJANI, M., “Reflections on the jurisdiction and trigger mechanism of the International Criminal Court”. en Von Hebel, Hermann / Lammers, Johan/ Schukking, Jolien, Reflections on the International Criminal Court, T.M.C. Asser Press, La Haya,1999
- BENSOUDA, F., “Challenges related to investigation and prosecution at the International Criminal Court”, en BELLELI, R., (ed.), International Criminal Justice. Surrey: Ashgate, (2010),
- BRUBACHER, M., “Prosecutorial discretion within the International Criminal Court”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2004-2
- CASSEL, D., “Lessons from the Americas: Guidelines for lnternational Response to Amnesties for Atrocities”, Law & Contemporary Problems, vol 59, 1996
- DUGART, J., “South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Process and International Humanitarian Law”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 1999-2
- HAYNER, P., “International Guidelines for the Creation and Operationof Truth Commissions: A Prelíminary Propasal”, Law & Contemporary Problems, vol 59, 1996
- LANDSMAN, S., “Alternative Responses to Serious Human Rights Abuses: Of Prosecutions and Truth Commissions”, Law & Contemporary Problems, VOL 59, 1996
- RAZENSBERGER, F., The International Criminal Court, Peter Lang, Francfort, 2006
- SCHAARF, M., “The amnesty exception of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court”, Cornell International Law Journal, Nº 32, 1999
- STAHN, C., “Complementarity, Amnesties and alternative forms of justice: some interpretative guidelines for the International Criminal Court”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Nº 3, 2005
- GOLDSTONE, R. y FRITZ, N., “In the interest of justice and the independent referral: The ICC prosecutor unprecedented power”, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 13, 2000
- RODMAN, K.A., “Justice as a Dialogue Between Law and Politics. Embedding the International Criminal Court within the Conflict Management and Peacebuilding”, JICJ, vol. 12 (3), 2014
- KERSTEN, M., Justice in Conflict. The Effects of the Internationakl Criminal Court’s Interventions on Ending Wars and Building Peace, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016