International Criminal Law Lecture Notes

8/10/2019 International Criminal Law Lecture Notes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/international-criminal-law-lecture-notes 1/43

International

Criminal

Law

SEMIREL A51

Buendia, Codei

Celeste, Kazel

Nebrida, Jasha

Perfecto, Joey



1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

I. Concepts of the International Criminal Law………………………………………2

a. Sources of International Criminal Law………………………………………...4

b. General Principles of Law………………………………………………………..5

c. Definition of International Crimes…………………………………………...….6

II. History of the International Criminal Law………………………………………..10

a. Post-World War II…………..…………………………………………………….11

i. Tokyo Tribunal………………………..……………………………………….11

ii. Nuremberg Tribunal ………………………...………………………………..11

b. Post- Cold War ……………………………………………………………………12

i. International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.........................12ii. International Criminal Tribunal for the Rwanda…………………………14

III. International Criminal Court…………………………………………………… .….16

a. Jurisdiction of the Court………………………………………………………..18

b. General Principles of Criminal Law…………………………………………..20

c. Structure of the Court……………………………………………………….….22

IV. International Cooperation on Transnational Crimes…………………………..22

a. UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crimes……………….23

V. International Cooperation for the Suppression of Municipal Crime……….26

a. Extradition…………………………………………………………………………26

b. Interpol……………………………………………………………………….……36

VI. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..41



2 | P a g e

I. CONCEPTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

INTRODUCTION: Concept

ICL is a body of international rules designed both to proscribe certain categories ofconduct (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, aggression, terrorism) and tomake those persons who engage in such conduct criminally liable. They consequently eitherauthorize states, or impose upon them the obligation, to prosecute and punish such criminalconducts. ICL also regulates international proceedings before international courts and tribunals,for prosecuting and trying persons accused of such crimes.

ICL IS….

- Branch of public international law- While international law typically concerns inter-state relations, international criminallaw concerns individuals. In particular, international criminal law places responsibility onindividual persons—not states or organizations—and proscribes and punishes acts that

are defined as crimes by international law.- Rules making up this body of law emanate from sources of international law

Unique features of ICL:

1. Relatively new branch of international law- List of international crimes (of the acts for whose accomplishment international lawmakes the authors criminally responsible) has come into being by gradualformulation.

a. Late 19th century only war crimes were punishable

b. WWII – new categoriesi. 1945 and 1946 Statues of 1. International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg

(IMT) 2. International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) were adoptedand laying down new classes of international criminality.

ii. 45: crimes against humanity and crimes against peace (wars of aggression)iii. 48: genocide (subcategory of crimes against humanity and became

autonomous class)

iv. 80: torture (discrete crime)

2. Very rudimentary branch of law- The gradual broadening has been a complex process. When a new class of crime

has emerged, its constituent elements (the objective and subjective conditions, or theactus reus - often referred to as the prohibited conduct, but more accuratelydescribed as the external elements of the offence, and mens rea - often referred toas the mental element, but more accurately described as the fault element) have notbeen immediately clear nor has any scale of penalties been laid down in internationalrules.

o Three main features of the formation of ICL stand out to explain this process: Treaties or customary rules confined themselves to prohibiting certain

acts (example: killing prisoners of war or bombing civilians) the prohibitionswere addressed to the states not directly to the individuals. Gradually, bybringing to trial before their courts enemy servicemen that breachedinternational rules of warfare, states made individuals directly and personally



3 | P a g e

accountable: gradually, state responsibility was either accompanied orreplaced by individual criminal liability. When this occurred, the inferencebecame warranted that international customary or treaty rules addressedthemselves not only to states but also to individuals, by criminalizing theirdeviant behavior in time of war, which was insufficient and inadequate andinternational rules did not provide for either the objective and subjectiverequirements of the crimes; in other words, they did not lay down theconditions for its criminal repression and punishment.

It follows that international law left to national courts the task ofprosecuting and punishing the alleged perpetrators. As a consequence,municipal courts of each state applied their procedural rules (legal provisionson jurisdiction and on the conduct of criminal proceedings) and rules on ‘thegeneral part’ of substantive criminal law; that is, on the definition andcharacter of the objective and subjective elements of crimes, on defences,etc.

When international criminal courts were set up (first in 1945 –7, then in1993 –4 and more recently in 1998 and 2002 –7), the crimes were notenumerated as in a criminal code, but simply as a specification of the jurisdictional authority of the relevant court. The value and scope of thoseenumerations was therefore only germane to the court’s jurisdiction and did

not purport to have a general reach.

3. Simultaneously derives its origin from and continuously draws upon bothinternational humanitarian law and human rights law, as well as national criminal law.- International humanitarian law (IHL) embraces principles and rules designed toregulate warfare both by restraining states in the conduct of armed hostilities and byprotecting those persons who do not take part, or no longer take part (having falleninto the hands of the enemy), in combat- As ICL, at its origin, was chiefly concerned with offences committed during armedhostilities in time of war (war crimes), it was only natural for it to build heavily uponinternational humanitarian rules: violations of these rules, which normally onlygenerated state responsibility, gradually came to be considered as breaches of law

also entailing individual criminal liability.- In addition, most customary rules of ICL have primarily evolved from municipal caselaw relating to international crimes (chiefly war crimes) this explains why ICL to agreat extent results from the gradual transposition on to the international level ofrules and legal constructs proper to national criminal law or to national trialproceedings. However, national legal orders do not contain a uniform regulation ofcriminal law.- It follows that ICL is an essentially hybrid branch of law : it is public international lawimpregnated with notions, principles, and legal constructs derived from nationalcriminal law, IHL as well as human rights law.

4. ICL is rapidly changing

- This is because unfortunately, in the world community there is a staggeringincrease in atrocities, whether or not linked to armed conflict.

5. Like most national legal systems, international rules criminalize not only conductcausing harm (for example, murder, rape, torture, shelling of innocent civilians) butalso conduct creating an unacceptable risk of harm (for example, conspiracy tocommit genocide, not followed by genocidal acts)



4 | P a g e

SOURCES OF ICL:

Follows the same sources used in Public International Law:1) treaty law;

2) customary international law (custom, customary law);3) general principles of law;4) judicial decisions (subsidiary source); and5) learned writings (subsidiary source).

- The five sources of ICL roughly correlate with the classic expression of the sources ofinternational law contained in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice(ICJ):

a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expresslyrecognized by the contesting States;b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;d) […] judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the

various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

TREATY:

ICL has many treaty sources. These range from the Genocide Convention and the gravebreaches provisions of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions to relevant human rights treaties andtreaties that are not as widely ratified as the Geneva Conventions, including the:

Convention on Human Rights);

ility and Development in the Great Lakes Region (2006) and itsProtocol on the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, War Crimes andCrimes against Humanity and all forms of Discrimination (Great Lakes Pact and Protocol); and

against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment.

Depending on the jurisdiction, in-force treaties that have been ratified (or acceded to) by therelevant state can be a direct source of applicable law. In jurisdictions where treaties cannot bea direct source of law, they often can serve as aids to interpretation of other applicable law.

At the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) and ICTR (InternationalCriminal Tribunal for Rwanda), treaty law is less important than custom as a direct source

(although some of the crimes in their Statutes are copied verbatim from treaties, for example,the Genocide Convention).

The Statute of the ICTR inherently adopts the position that treaties can be used as a source forinternational criminal law, since it criminalised violations of the Additional Protocol II to theGeneva Conventions, the whole of which was not considered to reflect customary internationallaw at the time.

The ICTY has laid down clear rules for when treaties can be a direct source of international



6 | P a g e

determining there was no “consistent concrete rule which answers the question of whether ornot duress is a defense to the killing of innocent persons”.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS:

The ICTY and ICTR have also referred to judicial decisions of national courts and other

international courts, including the ICJ, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg(Nuremberg tribunal), other post-World War II courts, the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR). They have usually done so when looking for evidence of custom. They have similarlyconsidered the publications of international authorities, including scholarly writings and reportsof relevant bodies such as the International Law Commission and International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC).

DEFINITION AND TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES: An international crime is a crime whose existence and definition is anticipated by internationallaw (e.g.: a treaty). All ICL crimes that have been created by treaty share the characteristic thatthey must be criminalized under domestic law.

CORE CRIMES: Are as follows: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression.

GENOCIDE:Has been described as “the crime of crimes” by the ICTR.

Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the ICC states that: "genocide" means any of the following actscommitted with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religiousgroup, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about itsphysical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Most importantly and distinctively (in relation to crimes against humanity for example), theseacts must have been committed with a particular intention (sometimes known as the “specialmens rea” or “dolus specialis”), that of destroying “in whole or in part” the target group “as such”.

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY:

The notion of crimes against humanity was originally created for the purposes of prosecuting themain Nazi defendants at Nuremberg. The definition of crimes against humanity is broader than



7 | P a g e

that of genocide. There is no requirement of “special intent”, only the general intent ofcommitting the various underlying acts. However, those acts must have been committed as partand with knowledge of a “generalized and systematic attack”. Under the Roman Statute of theICC Article 7 (1):

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when

committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation offundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforcedsterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other groundsthat are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connectionwith any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, orserious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

The abandonment of requirements that crimes against humanity be committed during war andcomport a discriminatory element can be seen as part of an effort to distinguish them moreclearly from, respectively, war crimes and genocide The criminological element of crimesagainst humanity is thus increasingly a unique attempt to protect humanity, understood as both

“the collectivity of human beings” and “what makes human being specifically human” (human-ness).

AGGRESSION:

Aggression and war crimes share the fact that they both relate to the regulation of the use ofmilitary armed violence, although they do so from two very different angles.



8 | P a g e

It is a criminal violation of what is known as the jus ad bellum (legality of resort to force),whereas war crimes are criminal violations of the jus in bello.

It was seen as a “crime against peace” and described as the “mother of all crimes” atNuremberg. The prohibition of war by the Briand-Kellog Pact of 1928, was seen as havingsolidified enough to have become a criminal prohibition under international law and all at

Nuremberg were accused of having conspired to disrupt international peace.

Definition of aggression?

The Cold War made it very difficult to come to an agreement as to the definition of Aggression(although a resolution was adopted by the General Assembly). An aggression can perhaps bestbe defined in negative terms as a military action that is neither in self-defense (as authorized byarticle 51 of the Charter) nor authorized by a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII ofthe Charter.

Post-Second World War: that only individuals in the highest spheres of the state (those involvedin the decision to launch a war) can be prosecuted for aggression.

The main difficulty is that there is no perfect consensus on the main parameters of aggression.For example some would not label the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1998by NATO as aggression even though it was a first use of force not authorized by the SecurityCouncil, and prefer to refer to it as an instance of humanitarian intervention.

WAR CRIMES:

The oldest in the history of international criminal law, having been prosecuted domestically onthe basis of international conventions since the First World War.

What constitutes a war crime is defined by the various rules of international humanitarian lawrelating to the use of certain means and methods of combat or certain “protected persons”.

International or non-international?

The distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts has been erodedsignificantly since. The Tadic decision of the ICTY had at least recognized that violations of the“law or customs of war” can lead to criminal responsibility in a non -international armed conflict.The ICTR Statute does not particularly specify in its war crimes provisions whether these needto have been committed internationally. The ICC Statute has since made the most concertedeffort to align the two. With their definition in Article 8, 1 & 2:

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committedas part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of thefollowing acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevantGeneva Convention:

(i) Willful killing;



9 | P a g e

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by militarynecessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in theforces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rightsof fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.

SEXUAL OFFENSES:

Perhaps one of the most significant substantive developments in ICL since the 1990s is anincreasing recognition of the role of sexual crimes in genocide, crimes against humanity or warcrimes. Statute of ICC Article 8 Section 2 e (vi) states:

(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined inarticle 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence alsoconstituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

Attention to the particular experience of women in contexts of violence, has led to innovative

prosecutorial strategies that aim to transcend some of ICL’s traditional gender -blindness.

As a crime against humanity, sexual offences now include, as stated in the Statute of the ICC in Article 7 (g):

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, orany other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

Finally, sexual violence has increasingly been recognized as a tool of genocide (because of theway it victimizes a significant part of the group, but also to the extent that it leads to unwantedpregnancies).

ENFORCEMENT:ICL, which relies on punishment, is uniquely vulnerable to the accusation that it is not beingenforced. It has taken the international community quite a long time to equip itself with effectiveenforcement mechanisms, and it has often done so in a way that would minimizeencroachments on sovereignty, but great strides have been accomplished in this field.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS:What makes these tribunals “international” is first that they are created by an international lawinstrument. ICTs have been created through a variety of means: through agreement



10 | P a g e

(Nuremberg), occupation order (Tokyo), Security Council Resolution (ICTY and ICTR) andinternational treaty (ICC).

Because of resistance to centralized criminal jurisdiction, ICTs were initially created “ad hoc”(i.e.: for the purposes of judging a particular caseload). The Nuremberg Tribunal (1945-1946)was the first such ad hoc tribunal, followed by the Tokyo tribunal (1946-1948), and the Former

Yugoslavia (The Hague) and Rwanda (Arusha) tribunals in the 1990s. A common characteristicof all these tribunals is that their jurisdiction is limited territorially (ICTY: Former Yugoslavia;ICTR: Rwanda), temporally (ICTR: duration of the genocide; ICTY: “since 1991”) or personally(ICTR: Rwandans in Rwanda’s neighboring states).

II. HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

The international criminal proceedings following World War II are credited with launchingthe modern regime of International Criminal Law (ICL). ICL draws on four main strands ofinternational law history:

1. 19

th

century prohibitions against piracy;2. Subsequent regulations of slavery and the slave trade;3. The once theological and later secular theory of just war; and4. International humanitarian law (IHL) or “the law of war”

On this foundation, the international community gradually built the norms, rules,instruments, and institutions that now make up the modern ICL machinery.

Several features of the evolution are worth pointing out at the outset: First, with theexception of post-World War II period (international tribunals were created); Second, until veryrecently, the design of much of the system was ad hoc and reactive to world events rather thanresult of any sort of coherent forward-looking process; Third, the history of the ICL is marked bygreater incursions into arenas that were historically exclusive province of sovereign states.

Meaning ICL norms increasingly govern the treatment a state can legally accord its citizens andothers under its jurisdiction.

A focus on post-World War II (creation of Tribunals)

This period heralded the development of two international tribunals for adjudicating internationalcrimes.

1. The International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals (the IMT orNuremberg); and

2. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (the IMTFE or Tokyo Tribunal)

Establishment of these tribunals were to prosecute, respectively, high-level German andJapanese military and civilian authorities whose crimes “had no particular geographiclocalization.”



11 | P a g e

Post-World War II

TOKYO TRIBUNAL

History

On January 19, 1946, MacArthur announced the establishment of the tribunal, and a few weekslater selected its eleven judges from names submitted to him by the governments sitting on the

Allied Far Eastern Commission. He also named Keenan the chief prosecutor and Australian SirWilliam Webb the tribunal's president. Twenty-eight high-ranking political and military leaderswere indicted on 55 counts of "crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimesagainst humanity." The Tokyo trials began on May 3, 1946, and lasted two and a half years.

And resulted in the executions of Generals Yamashita and Homma, the Tokyo trials have beencriticized as another example of "victors' justice.

The Tokyo tribunal, by contrast to Nuremberg, was established by a special proclamation(charter) issued by Supreme Allied Commander of the Far East, Douglas MacArthur althoughwith the acquiescence of the other Allied Powers.

Process As they had done in Germany, the Allies set up three broad categories. Which could be leveledat Japanese of any rank, covered "conventional war crimes" and "crimes against humanity,"respectively.

Principles:Same as Nuremberg Charter

POST COLD-WAR: Creation of ICTR and ICTY

In the late 80’s a consortium of Latin American and Caribbean states reinvigorated the project of

international criminal justice, primarily because they sought an international mechanism to fightthe transnational illicit drug trade. In the meantime, genocide has returned in Europe in the formof deportations, concentration, camps, ethnic cleansing, and mass killings of Bosnian Muslimcivilians during the war on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.

In the midst of war, the Security Council addressed the conflict in seriatim resolutions. InResolution 808, adopted February 22, 1993, the Security Council unanimously decided “that aninternational tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for seriousviolations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslaviasince 1991.”

NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL

History:

Towards the end of World War II, as the Allied Powers began to realize that victory wasimminent, there was disagreement on the question of what to do with the defeated Nazi leaders.While allied leaders such as Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister WinstonChurchill wanted summary executions without trials for high-ranking Nazi military officials, theU.S. was strongly committed to the idea of an international war crimes trial.



12 | P a g e

In 1945 the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became known to the world through aninternational military tribunal—now commonly called the Nuremberg trials—when dozens ofNazi officials were tried for their crimes. The first Nuremberg trial began on November 20, 1945.

The Nuremberg Tribunal was established by agreement (the London Agreement of August

8, 1945) among the four Allied Powers (he United States, France, the former Soviet Union andthe United Kingdom)

Process:

Each of the four nations prosecuting at Nuremberg had a judge and its own prosecutorialteam. The United States presented Count 1 (Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War), the Britishpresented Count 2 (Crimes against Peace), and the French and Soviets jointly presentedCounts 3 and 4 (War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity respectively). Each defendantchose a lawyer to represent him during the course of the trials.

Principles:

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

Crimes against peace:

Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation ofinternational treaties, agreements or assurances;

Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the actsmentioned under (i). (Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime underinternational law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.)

. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to,

murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilianpopulation of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, ofpersons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wantondestruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

. Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and otherinhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial orreligious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on inexecution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Post-Cold War

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

HistorySequentially, from above, the Secretary General was to prepare specific proposals for such atribunal. In Boutros-Ghali’s subsequent report he presented a tribunal blueprint and appended adraft statute setting forth existing international humanitarian and criminal law. Invoking theChapter VII powers, the Security Council unanimously adopted the draft statute in Resolution827 on May 25, 1993. Thus creating the ICTY



13 | P a g e

PrinciplesArticle 2: Jurisdiction

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to try persons for “grave breaches” of the GenevaConvention of August 12, 1949 in the International Armed Conflict.

Article 4: GenocideIs derived directly from the Genocide Convention of 1948 and requires the uniquemental element of specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racialor religious group, as such.

Article 5: Crimes against HumanityThe Tribunal requires that perpetrators of crimes against humanity committed one ormore of the offenses enumerated in the article’s provisions with the knowledge that theiracts formed part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. TheStatute grants jurisdiction over only those crimes against humanity committed in armedconflict, whether international or internal, signaling a departure from customaryinternational law. (The existence of an armed conflict is a prerequisite to triggering the

Tribunal's jurisdiction.)

Territorial and Temporal JurisdictionGrants jurisdiction over natural persons allegedly responsible for crimes committed afterJanuary 1, 1991 in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. While the ICTY and nationalcourts have concurrent jurisdiction over these crimes, the ICTY has primacy and maythus formally request national courts to defer to its competence. Furthermore, article 29places a binding obligation on States to cooperate with the ICTY in its investigations andprosecutions.

Article 7: Individual Criminal ResponsibilityIf a person planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in

the planning, preparation or execution of a crime, irrespective of the official position of theaccused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Governmentofficial. The fact that the crime was committed by a subordinate does not relieve his superior ofcriminal responsibility if the superior:

(i) had effective control over the subordinate;(ii) knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was either about to commit thecrime or had already done so; and(iii) failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the crime or topunish the subordinate perpetrator after the event.

Among the Tribunal’s elaborations of the modes of liability enshrined in article 7 is alsothe joint criminal enterprise theory of individual criminal responsibility, according to whichpersons are individually responsible for the commission of a crime as part of “a plurality

of co-perpetrators who act pursuant to a common purpose involving the commission of acrime in the Statute”

StructureThe judges constitute one of the Tribunal's three main organs – the Chambers. The other twoorgans are the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.

The Chambers are organized into three Trial Chambers and an Appeals Chamber. They areassisted in their work by the Chambers Legal Support teams. They consist of numerous legal



14 | P a g e

staff, employed by the Registry, who assists the judges in conducting research, helping them inpreparing and managing cases, as well as in participating in the draft of legal documents.

The job of the Prosecutor is twofold: to investigate crimes and to present cases at trial and later,if necessary, on appeal. The Prosecutor is independent and does not seek or receiveinstructions from external agencies such as any government or international organization, or

from either of the Tribunal’s other two organs.

The unique character of an international criminal judicial institution puts the Registry at thecenter of a complex set of responsibilities in running the Tribunal. In addition to theadministration of the courtrooms, the Registry assumes duties that are often afforded toministries in national systems. Finally, the Registry fulfills the tasks of the administrative body ofa UN organ.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA

History

A year after, Rwanda became engulfed in a genocide of colossal proportions. 800,000Tutsi and Hutu individuals perished within the span of a mere four months – a rate of killing thatfar exceeded that in the Nazi Holocaust. The Security Council could not readily ignore almost amillion dead in Rwanda, the Security Council through Resolution 955 thus established theInternational Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

PrinciplesGenocide

As stated in Article 2 of the ICTR Statute, the ICTR shall have the power to prosecutepersons committing genocide with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,ethnical, racial or religious group such as;

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring aboutits physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The following acts shall be punishable:(a) Genocide(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring aboutits physical destruction in whole or in part(d) Attempt to commit genocide

(e) Complicity in Genocide

Crimes against Humanity

In Article 3 of the ICTR Statute, it states that the ICTR shall have the power to prosecutepersons responsible for the following crimes:

(a) Murder(b) Extermination(c) Enslavement(d) Deportation



15 | P a g e

(e) Imprisonment(f) Torture(g) Rape(h) Persecution on political, racial and ethnical grounds(i) other inhumane acts

JURISDICTION

Article 7: Territorial and Temporal JurisdictionThe jurisdiction shall extend to the territory of Rwanda (land surface and airspace) andas well as the neighboring states

Article 3: Concurrent JurisdictionThe ICTR and national courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute persons for

serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda,Rwandan citizens or within the neighboring States. The ICTR shall have the primacy over thenational courts of all States. The ICTR shall have primacy over the national courts of all States.

At any stage of the procedure, the ICTR may formally request national courts to defer to itscompetence in accordance with the present Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidenceof the ICTR.

Artic le 9: Non Bis in Idem

1. No person shall be tried before a national court for acts constituting serious violationsof international humanitarian law under the present Statute, for which he or she hasalready been tried by the International Tribunal for Rwanda.

2. A person who has been tried by a national court for acts constituting serious violationsof international humanitarian law may be subsequently tried by the International Tribunal

for Rwanda only if:

(a) The act for which he or she was tried was characterized as an ordinary crime;or

(b) The national court proceedings were not impartial or independent, weredesigned to shield the accused from international criminal responsibility, or thecase was not diligently prosecuted.

3. In considering the penalty to be imposed on a person convicted of a crime under thepresent Statute, the International Tribunal for Rwanda shall take into account the extentto which any penalty imposed by a national court on the same person for the same acthas already been served.

StructureRelatively same as ICTY

The Chambers shall consist of 16 appointed permanent independent judges. The Trial Chamberwill have sections of three with three judges each. While, on the other hand, seven judges willbe in the Appeals Chamber. The judge must be a person of high moral character, impartiality



16 | P a g e

and integrity.

The Prosecutor shall be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of personsresponsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory ofRwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for such violations committed in the territory ofneighboring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994. The Prosecutor shall act

independently as a separate organ of the International Tribunal for Rwanda.

The Registry shall be responsible for the administration and servicing of the InternationalTribunal for Rwanda. The Registry shall consist of a Registrar and such other staff as may berequired

III. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is governed by the Rome

Statute and entered into force on July 1, 2002 after 60 countries haveratified it. It is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court

established to help impunity for the perpetrators of the most seriouscrimes of concern to the international community.

Facts about the ICC:

It is an independent organization and is not a part of the UnitedNations system.

Seats in The Hague, in the Netherlands (“host state”), but maytake its proceedings anywhere else.

Similar to the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials since it addressed war crimes, crimesagainst peace and crimes against humanity which were committed during WWII.

There were tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia andRwanda but since it was only for crimes committed only within a specific time-frame

and a specific conflict, there was a need to have a permanent criminal court, thus theICC.

On July 17, 1998 when 120 states adopted the Rome Statute, which then becamethe basis for the ICC.

Currently has 121 state parties. Included are 11 African States, 18 Asia-PacificStates, 18 Eastern Europe States, 27 Latin American and Caribbean States and 25Western European and other States.

No reservations may be made to the Roman Statute



17 | P a g e



18 | P a g e

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

The ICC or the Court is a permanent institution and has the power to exercise its jurisdictionover persons for the most serious crimes of international concern. (Article 1). Article 5 of theRome Statute says that, the Court has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern tothe international community as a whole and they are: (a) Crime of Genocide (b) Crimes against

Humanity (c) War Crimes (d) Crime of Aggression. However, the Court may only have jurisdiction over the Crimes against Aggression after January 1, 2017. The Court is a court oflast resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial systemunless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings wereundertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility.

1. Genocide

Article 6 of the Rome Statute explains that genocide means any of the following actscommitted with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or rebelliousgroup.

(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about itsphysical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

2. Crimes against Humanity

Article 7 of the Rome Statute states that the crime against humanity means any of thefollowing acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed againstan civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder(b) Extermination(c) Enslavement(d) Deportation of forcible transfer of population(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamentalrules of international law(f) Torture(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization,or any other form of sexual violence of comparative gravity(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national,ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that areuniversally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any

act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;(j) The crime of apartheid;(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, orserious injury to body or to mental or physical health.



19 | P a g e

3. War Crimes

Article 8 of the Rome Statute states that the necessary acts that can be classified as a warcrime was adapted from the Geneva Conventions (August 12, 1949)

(a) Willful killing

(b) Torture or inhuman treatment of a protected person, including biological experiments

(c) Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to the body or health

(d) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, or not justified by militarynecessity and carried out unlawfully or unwantonly

(e) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of ahostile power

(f) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war other protected person of the rights of fair andregular trial

(g) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement

(h) Taking of hostages

SITUATION AND CASES

Republic of the Congo

o The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

o The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui

o The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda

o The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana

Central African Republic

o The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo

Uganda

o The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and DominicOngwen

o The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun ("Ahmad Harun") and AliMuhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman ("Ali Kushayb")

o The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir

o The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda

o The Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh MohammedJerbo Jamus

o The Prosecutor v. Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein

Kenya

o The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang

o The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta

Libya

o The Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi

Republic of Côte d'Ivoire

o The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo

http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200205/related%20cases/icc%200205%200107/Pages/darfur_%20sudan.aspx



http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200205/related%20cases/icc02050109/Pages/icc02050109.aspx










http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/icc0111/related%20cases/icc01110111/Pages/icc01110111.aspx


http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/icc0211/Pages/situation%20index.aspx




http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/icc0211/Pages/situation%20index.aspx













20 | P a g e

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Article 22: Nullum Crim en Sine Lege

(1) A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in questionconstitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

(2) The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. Incase of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated,prosecuted or convicted.(3) This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under internationallaw independently of this Statute.

Article 23: Nulla Poena Sine Lege A person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute.

Article 24: Non-retroactivity Ratione Personae No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry intoforce of the Statute.

Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility (1) The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute(2) A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individuallyresponsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.(3) In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable forpunishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or throughanother person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or isattempted;(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets orotherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing themeans for its commission;

(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such acrime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall beintentional and shall either:

(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose ofthe group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crimewithin the jurisdiction of the Court; or(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;

(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commitgenocide;(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution bymeans of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstancesindependent of the person's intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort tocommit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable forpunishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person

completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.(4) No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect theresponsibility of States under international law.

Article 26: Exclusion of Jurisdiction over Persons under Eighteen

The Court shall have no jurisdiction over any person who was under the age of 18 at the time ofhe alleged commission of a crime.



21 | P a g e

Article 30: Mental Element

(1) Less otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment fora crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intentand knowledge.(2) For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where:

(a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct;

(b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or isaware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.

(3) For the purposes of this article, "knowledge" means awareness that a circumstance exists or aconsequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. "Know" and "knowingly" shall beconstrued accordingly.

Article 33: Superior orders and prescription of law(1) The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a personpursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian shall not relievethat person of criminal responsibility unless:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or thesuperior in question;(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and

(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful. (2) For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity aremanifestly unlawful.

STRUCTURE OF THE COURT

The Court is composed of four organs:(a) The Presidency(b) Appeals Division, Trial Division and Pre-Trial Division(c) The Office of the Prosecutor(d) The Registry

The Presidency

There will be a President, First and Second Vide-President, they are voted through anabsolute majority of the judges and will serve a three year term. They are responsible for theproper administration of the Court and other functions conferred upon it in the accordance withthe Rome Statute

The Chambers and Judges

There will be 18 Judges that are elected via secret ballot . These judges must becompetent in Criminal Law and International Law (International Humanitarian Law and Law ofHuman Rights). There must not be two nationals of the same State.

The Appeals Chamber o President and Four Judges

The Trial Chamber and the Pre-Trial Chambero not less than six judges

The judges of the Court are: Sang-Hyun Song (Republic of Korea), Sanji MmasenonoMonageng (Botswana), Cuno Tarfusser (Italy), Hans-Peter Kaul (Germany), Akua Kuenyehia



22 | P a g e

(Ghana), Erkki Kourula (Finland), Anita Ušacka (Latvia), Ekaterina Trendafilova (Bulgaria),Joyce Aluoch (Kenya), Christine van den Wyngaert (Belgium), Silvia Alejandra Fernández deGurmendi (Argentina), Kuniko Ozaki (Japan), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Philippines), HowardMorrison (United Kingdom), Anthony T. Carmona (Trinidad and Tobago), Olga HerreraCarbuccia (Dominican Republic), Robert Fremr (Czech Republic) and Chile Eboe-Osuji(Nigeria).

Office of the Prosecutor

The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiatedinformation on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conductinginvestigations and prosecutions before the Court. The Office is headed by the Prosecutor, LuisMoreno-Ocampo (Argentina), who was elected by the States Parties for a term of nine years.He is assisted by Deputy Prosecutor Mrs. Fatou Bensouda who is in charge of the ProsecutionDivision of the Office of the Prosecutor.

The Registry

The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration andservicing of the Court. The Registry is headed by the Registrar who is the principaladministrative officer of the Court. The Registrar exercises his or her functions under theauthority of the President of the Court. The current Registrar, elected by the judges for a term offive years, is Ms Silvana Arbia (Italy).

Other Offices

The Court also includes a number of semi-autonomous offices such as the Office ofPublic Counsel for Victims and the Office of Public Counsel for Defense. These Offices fallunder the Registry for administrative purposes but otherwise function as wholly independent

offices. The Assembly of States Parties has also established a Trust Fund for the benefit ofvictims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court and the families of these victims

IV. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON TRANSNATIONAL CRIMES

Transnational Crimes

Crimes that affect national borders

The concept of ‘transnational crime’, from a criminological perspective, originates fromthe mid-1970s when the United Nations used the term in order to identify certain criminalactivities which transcend national jurisdictions

In 1995, the United Nations identified eighteen categories of transnational – and mostly

organized – criminality. Transnational crime was then defined as ‘offences whoseinception, prevention and/or direct or indirect effects involved more than one country.’

o Money launderingo Terrorist activitieso Theft of art and cultural objectso Theft of intellectual propertyo Illicit trafficking in armso Aircraft hijacking



23 | P a g e

o Sea piracyo Land hijackingo Insurance fraudo Computer crimeo Environmental crimeo Trafficking in personso Trade in human body partso Illicit drug traffickingo Fraudulent bankruptcyo Infiltration of legal businesseso Corruption and bribery of public officialso Corruption and bribery of party officials and elected representativeso Other offences committed by organized groups

Transnational Organized Crimes

Transnational organized crime involves the planning and execution of illicit businessventures by groups or networks of individuals working in more than one country. Thesecriminal groups use systematic violence and corruption to achieve their goals. Crimes

commonly include money laundering; human smuggling; cyber crime; and trafficking ofhumans, drugs, weapons, endangered species, body parts, or nuclear material.

Major Transnational Organized Crime Groups

Russian Mafia – Around 200 Russian groups that operate in nearly 60 countriesworldwide. They have been involved in racketeering, fraud, tax evasion, gambling, drugtrafficking, arson, robbery, and murder.

La Cosa Nostra – Known as the Italian or Italian-American mafia. The most prominentorganized crime group in the world from the 1920s to the 1990s. They have beeninvolved in violence, arson, bombings, torture, loan sharking, gambling, drug trafficking,health insurance fraud, and political and judicial corruption.

Yakuza – Japanese criminal group. Often involved in multinational criminal activities,

including human trafficking, gambling, prostitution, and undermining licit businesses. Fuk Ching – Chinese organized criminal group in the United States. They have been

involved in smuggling, street violence, and human trafficking.

Triads – Underground criminal societies based in Hong Kong. They control secretmarkets and bus routes and are often involved in money laundering and drug trafficking.

Heijin – Taiwanese gangsters who are often executives in large corporations. They areoften involved in white collar crimes, such as illegal stock trading and bribery, andsometimes run for public office.

Jao Pho – Organized crime group in Thailand. They are often involved in illegal politicaland business activity.

Red Wa – Gangsters from Thailand. They are involved in manufacturing and traffickingmethamphetamine.

United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime

Also called the Palermo Convention, The Convention against Transnational OrganizedCrime is a United Nations-sponsored multilateral treaty against transnational organizedcrime, adopted in 2000. By June 2012, 147 countries and 168 parties have signed theConvention.

According to Article 3 of the Convention: an offence is transnational in nature if:o It is committed in more than one state;



24 | P a g e

o It is committed in one state but substantial part of its preparation, planning,direction or control takes place in another state;

o It is committed in one State but involves an organized criminal group thatengages in criminal activities in more that one state; or

o It is committed in one state but has substantial effects in another state.

It has three protocols (the Palermo Protocols):o Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially

Women and Children;o Protocol against smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.o Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms

All of these instruments contain elements of the current international law on humantrafficking, arms trafficking and money laundering

The convention and the protocols fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Officeon Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women andChildren

The Protocol covers the following:

Defining the crime of trafficking in human beings; essentially, trafficking is the transportof persons, by means of coercion, deception, or consent for the purpose of exploitationsuch as forced or consensual labor or prostitution:

o "Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer,harboring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or otherforms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power orof a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefitsto achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the

purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitationof the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or

services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal oforgans... The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intendedexploitation set forth [above] shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth[above] have been used.

Facilitating the return and acceptance of children who have been victims of cross-bordertrafficking, with due regard to their safety;

Prohibiting the trafficking of children (which is defined as being a person under 18 yearsof age) for purposes of commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), exploitativelabor practices or the removal of body parts;

Suspending parental rights of parents, caregivers or any other persons who haveparental rights in respect of a child should they be found to have trafficked a child;

Ensuring that definitions of trafficking reflect the need for special safeguards and care forchildren, including appropriate legal protection;

Ensuring that trafficked persons are not punished for any offences or activities related totheir having been trafficked, such as prostitution and immigration violations;

Ensuring that victims of trafficking are protected from deportation or return where thereare reasonable grounds to suspect that such return would represent a significantsecurity risk to the trafficked person or their family;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trafficking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_trafficking





25 | P a g e

Considering temporary or permanent residence in countries of transit or destination fortrafficking victims in exchange for testimony against alleged traffickers, or onhumanitarian and compassionate grounds;

Providing for proportional criminal penalties to be applied to persons found guilty oftrafficking in aggravating circumstances, including offences involving trafficking inchildren or offences committed or involving complicity by state officials; and,

Providing for the confiscation of the instruments and proceeds of trafficking and relatedoffences to be used for the benefit of trafficked persons.

Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air

The purpose of this Protocol is to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants, as wellas to promote cooperation among States Parties to that end, while protecting the rightsof smuggled migrants (Article 2).

Also called The Smuggling Protocol, it entered into force on 28 January 2004. By 2012the protocol had been signed by 112 states, and ratified by 130

The Protocol is aimed at the protection of rights of migrants and the reduction of thepower and influence of organized criminal groups that abuse migrants. It emphasizes theneed to provide migrants with humane treatment, and the need for comprehensiveinternational approaches to combating people smuggling, including socio-economicmeasures that address the root causes of migration.

The signatory States must establish the following acts as criminal offences whencommitted with the aim of obtaining a financial or material benefit:

o The smuggling of migrants, that is, procuring the illegal entry of a person into aState of which he is not a national or a permanent resident;

o Producing fraudulent travel or identity documents;o The use of a document by a person other than the rightful holder;o Procuring, providing or possessing fraudulent documents; enabling a person to

remain in a country without complying with the necessary requirements.

International Cooperationo The States Parties will work towards strengthening their borders and are entitled

to deny entry to persons implicated in the smuggling of migrants.o Countries with common borders or lying on routes used by criminal groups are

required to exchange certain information such as that relating to the embarkationand destination points used by the traffickers, the routes and modes oftransportation used and the methods of concealment of migrants, etc.

o Immigration officials and other competent agents shall be trained in preventingthe smuggling of migrants, in the humane treatment of such persons and inprotecting their rights. To this end, the States shall cooperate with each other andwith international organisations, non-governmental organisations and othercompetent organisations, as well as with other elements of civil society to ensurethat there is adequate personnel training.

o Furthermore, States with relevant expertise and appropriate technical resourcesshould help States that are frequently countries of origin or transit for migrants.

Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms

"The purpose of this Protocol is to promote, facilitate and strengthen cooperation amongStates Parties in order to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of andtrafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition" (Article 2)

The provisions of the Protocol that touch upon Community competences are those



26 | P a g e

concerning the marking of firearms, record-keeping, import, export and transit licensing,border controls, brokers, and deactivation of firearms

o The Protocol requires States to establish as criminal offences the illicitmanufacturing of and trafficking in firearms as well as tampering with markingson firearms.

o The Protocol requires that States implement a series of control measures on

firearms and ammunition such as maintaining records on firearms markings andtransactions, marking firearms for the purposes of identification and tracing andestablishing effective export, import and transit licensing systems Importantly, theProtocol requires mandatory marking not only at the time of manufacture, butalso at the time of import to facilitate the identification and tracing of each firearm

o The Protocol calls for cooperation at the bilateral, regional and internationallevels in the exchange of information, tracing of firearms, training, technical,financial and material assistance among states to mitigate the illicit trade in andmanufacture of firearms. Further, it encourages states to seek support andcooperation amongst manufacturers, dealers, importers, exporters, brokers andcommercial carriers of firearms

o The Protocol calls for the regulation of arms brokering and the inclusion of

information on brokers and brokering activities in exchanges of informationbetween states.

The draft Firearms Protocol was finalized at the twelfth session of the ad hoc Committeeresponsible for preparing the instruments for the fight against organized crime, held inVienna from 26 February to 2 March 2001, and adopted by the United Nations General

Assembly in Resolution No 55/255 of 8 June 2001. It has been open for signature byStates and regional economic integration organizations from the thirtieth day following itsadoption, at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York.

V. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF MUNICIPAL

CRIME

Extradition

Extradition is the formal surrender by a State (the requested State) of a person presentin its territory to another State (the requesting State) that seeks the person either in order toprosecute him or her or to enforce a sentence already handed down by its courts.

Extradition is the oldest form of international cooperation in criminal matters and isrecognized as an effective instrument of international cooperation in law enforcement. As ameans of cooperation that directly affects the freedom of individuals, extradition is seen as alsothe most complex mechanism and the one that raises the most challenges, in particularbetween States with different legal traditions.

Extradition procedure: overview and comparative aspects

The way the extradition process depends mainly on the national law of the requestedState. The procedure therefore varies from one country to another, to a greater or lesser extent,according to each country’s legal tradition.

Common-law countries share similarities in their procedures, but these differ from thoseof civil-law countries, for example. This results in many differences in the positive law and



27 | P a g e

procedural law of each country, these differences may obstruct efficient extradition. The timelinebelow shows the main stages of the extradition procedure.

Provisional arrest for the purpose of extradition

Request for provisional arrest

If the circumstances warrant and/or in case of urgency, the legal authority of the requestedState may order the provisional arrest of a wanted person before receipt of the formal request

for extradition. A request for provisional arrest attests to the existence in the requesting State ofa judicial act ordering the arrest or of a conviction. The obligatory elements that the requestmust contain are specified in a number of multilateral or bilateral treaties on extradition.

Transmission of the request for provisional arrest

A request for provisional arrest can generally be made by any means of transmissionproducing a hard copy or equivalent. It is generally sent, however, through these channels:

Diplomatic channels - The mandating authority may transmit its request – translatedinto the language of the requested State – through diplomatic channels, viaembassies and consular officers.

International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). - The request for provisional

arrest may be transmitted through INTERPOL.

Time Period

This time period varies among the different regional treaties: it is between:

18 and 40 days for States parties to the European Convention on Extradition,

20 days for States parties to the ECOWAS Convention on Extradition,

30 days for States parties to the Arab League Convention on Mutual Assistance inCriminal Matters



28 | P a g e

60 days for the States parties to the Inter-American Convention on Extradition.

In the absence of a treaty, the requirements of the requesting State must be followed.

Note: A request for extradition does not constitute a presumption of guilt. The obligation to

prosecute if extradition is refused (aut dedere aut judicare) does not mean, however, that anallegation proving to have no basis must be brought to court.

Simplified extradition

• The person consents to be extradited

If the person who is the object of the request for extradition gives his or her explicitconsent before the decision of the competent requested authority concerning the extradition hasbeen made, the requested State may grant extradition without formal extradition proceedings.

• Conditions

Prior to giving such consent, the person who is the object of the request must beinformed:

(a) of his or her right to formal extradition proceedings;(b) and of the rights and protections he or she is entitled to under those proceedings, as well as

the legal consequences of his or her consent.

Diplomatic channels

Extradition is an inter-State diplomatic act. Extradition is a form of cooperation between States.Thus, any request for extradition, as well as the response to it, is inter-State diplomatic acts. Anextradition act is the act of an executive authority and not of the judicial authority.

In principle, therefore, all requests for extradition should be presented through diplomaticchannels.

It is only after receipt of the request for extradition by the Government of the requestedState that the latter transmits it to its competent national jurisdictions in order for them toestablish the validity of the request.

There may be three types of extradition procedure in the requested State:

(1) A purely administrative procedure;

(2) A purely judicial procedure;

(3) A procedure that is both judicial and administrative (the most common).

According to legislation relating to extradition, there are two types of inquiry:

(a) A formal inquiry based on the documents attached to the request for extradition, the purposeof which is to certify that the formal conditions for extradition are fulfilled (system of civil lawcountries);

(b) A material inquiry based on the merits of the case, which examines the evidence in order todetermine that the case for prosecution is well-founded (common law system).



29 | P a g e

The traditional diplomatic channel of transmission of requests for extradition requires severalsteps: it requires not only the involvement of embassy services, but also that of departments of

justice and foreign offices.

In order to accelerate the procedure:

Other entities, such as central authorities, are increasingly called upon;

Modern means of communication are increasingly used so that the request may advancequickly.

Note: The principle “extradite or prosecute” (aut dedere aut judicare) which is the legalobligation of states under public international law to prosecute persons who commitserious international crimes where no other state has requested extradition, is clearlyestablished in the negotiated universal instruments against terrorism and is also a binding rule,since it is embodied in Security Council resolution 1373 (2001).

Applicable law: execution of the request in accordance with the law of the requested orrequesting State

• Principle: compliance with the legislation of the requested party.

Extradition is subject to the domestic law of the requested party and to the obligationsset forth in the bilateral or multilateral extradition agreements, as well as to international law, inparticular, human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.

Rule of Speciality

In accordance with the principle of speciality, the extradition granted is valid only inrelation to the facts mentioned in the request for extradition and for which extradition wasgranted.

• Consequences

As long as the requested State does not give its consent to a new prosecution on thebasis of an additional request, the extradited person may not be prosecuted, detained orsurrendered to a third State for another offence committed prior to his extradition.

If the person was extradited by virtue of a conviction, only the sentence handed down inrelation to the case for which the extradition was granted may be enforced. If the requestingState determines that, subsequent to the extradition, offences committed before that dateshould be prosecuted, it may request permission from the requested State to prosecute basedon the new facts (request for extension of extradition)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_crime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_crime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state





30 | P a g e

Liaison magistrates

• Counsel and expertise

The magistrate’s role of facilitator in matters of international criminal cooperation alsoencompasses extradition procedures. Indeed, there are significant differences betweencountries concerning the processing of such procedures, for example, in whether they give

precedence to a request for provisional arrest or to a request for extradition.

The establishment of the file must also take into account the avenues of appealavailable in the country in question: for example, opening an extradition file in the UnitedKingdom is directly dependent on habeas corpus and judicial review.

Re-extradition

It is possible for a requesting State to re-extradite a wanted person to a third State?

Legal bases for extradition

The legal basis for extradition may be a:

Treaty,

an Ad hoc agreement or

the principles of reciprocity or comity principles that are generally supported by domesticlegislation.

In practice, extradition is most commonly granted on the basis of bilateral and multilateraltreaties concluded among a number of States at the bilateral, regional and global levels. Suchtreaties either deal exclusively with extradition or contain specific provisions on the subject.

Unlike bilateral treaties, multilateral treaties can serve as a legal basis for a large number ofStates, thus averting the need for hundreds of bilateral treaties. In particular, they are veryhelpful for States whose position is that they will NOT agree to extradite without a treaty in orderto avoid being used as a haven for escaping extradition.

Note: The most important of the multilateral treaties are the universal conventionsagainst terrorism, which may constitute a sufficient legal basis for States that need to invoke atreaty.

Agreement based on reciprocity and comity

Many States prefer to extradite to countries with which they have concluded a treaty. However,in the absence of a treaty or if the treaty is not applicable (for example, if it does not include theoffence for which the individual is requested in the list of extraditable offences), it is still possible

for most States to extradite on the basis of reciprocity and comity.

• By requesting extradition on the basis of reciprocity, a State undertakes to do the same foranother State that responds positively to its request. In practice, unless the law or nationalcustom provides otherwise, the assurance of reciprocity may be expressed in the form of adiplomatic note attached to the extradition request or contained in the request itself.

• Since ultimately the decision whether or not to extradite an individual often falls within thesovereign right of States, extradition may be granted, in the absence of a treaty, on the basis ofthe comity, or courtesy, of nations, provided this does not contrary to public policy. (Comity



31 | P a g e

contributes to the maintenance of good relations between States.)

In countries where extradition is granted on the basis of the principle of reciprocity or comity,national law provides for the set of conditions in which the extradition procedure should goforward in the absence of a treaty.

For example, many f rancophone countries apply the French Extradition Act of 10 March 1927: “In

the absence of a treaty, the conditions, procedure and effects of extradition are determined by the provisions of the present Act”. If there is no specific extradition law, many pr actitioners resort tothe applicable criminal procedure law, or even sometimes extend the application of certain newlaws that contain provisions on extradition, for example, a law on money-laundering andinternational cooperation in relation to the proceeds of crime.

Prior offences

The rule of speciality limits the rights of the requesting State that made the originalrequest for extradition to re-extradite the person to another State (third State) without firstobtaining the permission of the original requested State. Consequently, the same principles andprocedures of speciality also apply to the possibility of re-extradition.

Possible solutions where the requesting authority receives a request for re-extradition orsurrender to a third State for offence(s) committed prior to the surrender and other than theoffence(s) on which the extradition was based:

If the decision to extradite includes the express condition that the person concerned shall notbe extradited to a third State, the requesting State is bound by this.

If the extradition is granted on the express condition that the requesting State shall re-extradite the person concerned to a third State (for example, where there is a plurality ofextradition requests), the requesting State shall comply.

If the decision to extradite contains no mention of the possibility of re-extradition, theconventions sometimes provide for the possibility of re-extraditing with the permission of the

requested State.

Note: If the response to the request for extradition is negative, the requested State must declare jurisdiction and submit the case against the individual concerned for prosecution, under the aut

dedere aut judicare principle.

Bars to extradition under international human rights and refugee law

The requested State is bound to examine the consequences of extradition for theindividual concerned. It must refuse to extradite if this would be in breach of its non-refoulementobligations under relevant international treaties and customary international law.

The obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement as provided for underinternational refugee and human rights law takes precedence over any duty to extradite on the

basis of a bilateral or multilateral extradition agreement or extradition-related provisions in otherinternational treaties.

Respect for human rights. International human rights law establishes a mandatory baron extradition under certain circumstances:

Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman orDegrading Treatment or Punishment expressly provides that “no State Party shall



32 | P a g e

expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there aresubstantial grounds for believing that he [or she] would be in danger of beingsubjected to torture”.

The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life and of torture and other cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment under the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, as interpreted by the Human Rights Committee, also covers a bar on refoulement to arisk of such treatment. Regional human rights treaties provide for similar obligations.

Note: Extradition may be denied if the requested State is concerned that the wanted personwould be subjected to serious violations of fair trial guarantees in the requesting State.

Outcomes

Agreement on the condition of mutual trust (based on diplomatic assurances). Statesmay agree on a positive outcome to the extradition request, on condition that the requestingState commits itself to respect the rights in question

• Example: France granted extradition of a United States citizen to his home country oncondition that the prosecuting authorities of the federal state guaranteed not to imposethe death penalty, since that goes against French public order (Council of States, 17October 1993). It is for the executive body of the requested State to judge whether theassurances given by the requesting State are satisfactory. Nevertheless, States cannotresort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture and ill-treatment wherethere are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of beingsubjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return.

Specific issues

Trial in absentia

Where a request for extradition is issued for execution of an arrest warrant based on a judgement in absentia, it is advisable for the requesting party to offer the guarantee that theperson shall be retried with the full benefit of the rights of defense, so as to avoid denial of theextradition request.

Statute of l imitat ions

By virtue of the principle of dual criminality, according to which the extraditable offence isrequired to be punishable in the requesting State and would be punishable in the requestedState, were it committed in its territory, when the statute of limitations has expired in therequested State, extradition may be refused. However, it should be noted that this principle is indecline.

Conditions relating to the individual

Nationality of the person sought

While a requesting State may request the extradition of any individual, (even one of its own



33 | P a g e

nationals) it is traditional for many States, especially civil-law States, not to extradite their owncitizens.

This does not mean that they can find refuge in their home country: the non-extradition rule inrespect of nationals is tempered by the existence of active personality principle, which allowsthese States to establish their competence and to prosecute their nationals for offences that

they have committed abroad. This rule does not exist in most common-law countries, whichextradite their nationals.

Many of the States have agreed bilateral treaties that offer the requested State the choice ofextraditing their nationals or not and, in the case of refusal, the State undertakes to bring thecase before its own judicial authorities in conformity with the aut dedere aut iudicare principle.

The political nature of the offence

The exception for the political nature of an offence is a standard clause found in themajority of extradition treaties and in many States’ national laws. Traditionally, extraditionrequests were rejected if the requested State maintained that the offence in question was of apolitical nature. That principle originates from the 19 th century and is based on the idea thatresistance to political oppression and dictatorship must be supported.

Although widely known, the term “ political offence” is seldom defined in national treatiesor legislations. What is more, the exception has always been difficult to analyse from a legalpoint of view, except when applied in its most simple form to non-violent political expression oractivities.

Problems arise in the case of offences that are similar to ordinary offences againstpersons or property, but have been committed on political grounds. These are interpreted by thecase law of countries according to the various criteria that they have developed to determinewhether an offence is an illegal attempt to force governmental change or is more akin to anordinary offence. However, no coherent or satisfactory rule of applicability has emerged, andexcusing attacks on innocent civilians on political grounds is seen increasingly as tantamount to

protecting terrorists.

Conditions relating to punishment

Severity of the punishment

Since extradition is a cooperation measure that affects the freedom of the individual inquestion, as well as a costly mechanism for the States concerned, it follows that it should bereserved for relatively serious offences. Sometimes, the severity of the punishment results fromthe nature of the offence: many extradition treaties and national laws list extraditable offences

and strictly limit extradition to this list.One major disadvantage is that it is necessary to renegotiate or supplement the treaty if

the two States adopt laws that include new offences, or if the list inadvertently omits a seriousoffence that is punishable in both States. In order to limit the duration and cost of negotiations,States have preferred to include a general clause in more recent agreements, stipulating acertain degree of severity for the incurred or pronounced sentence. Offences no longer need tobe specifically listed in order for extradition to take place.

Example — article 2 of the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition,



34 | P a g e

“extraditable offences”

“For the purposes of t he present Treaty, extraditable offences are offences that are punishable under the laws of both Parties by imprisonment or other deprivation of libertyfor a maximum period of at least [one/two] year(s), or by a more severe penalty. Wherethe request for extradition relates to a person who is wanted for the enforcement of a

sentence of imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty imposed for such an offence,extradition shall be granted only if a period of at least [four/six] months of such sentenceremains to be served.”

Nature of certain punishments

Death penalty

Some States refuse to grant extradition to a country where the death penalty can beimposed. This is notably the case for State parties to the Second Optional Protocol to theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at the abolition of the death penalty,in force since 1991, as well as for State parties to regional instruments (in particular the Protocolto the 1990 American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty within theOrganization of American States, and Protocol No. 13 to the 2002 Convention for the Protectionof Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty in allcircumstances within the Council of Europe). States may, however, agree to the extraditionrequest on the condition that the requesting State undertakes not to pronounce or implementcapital punishment.

Conditions relating to competence

Competence of the requesting State — According to certain bilateral extradition treaties andnational laws, extradition may only be granted if the offence has been committed within therequesting State’s territory. To avoid extradition being refused solely for this reason and

resulting in impunity, the universal counter-terrorism treaties include the following legal fiction:“Offences shall be treated, for the purposes of extradition between State parties, as though theyhad been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of theStates that have established their jurisdiction”.

Competence of the requested State — Many bilateral extradition treaties and legislations statethat extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition has been requested hasbeen committed within the territory of the requested State. This rule is justified notably by thefact that public policy in the requested State has been contravened.

Conditions relating to procedureFair treatment

That includes the exercise of rights and adherence to guarantees established by nationallaw and the applicable provisions of international law, notably those relating to human rights.Reference to international law has become common practice since the 1997 InternationalConvention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. Among the instruments relating tohuman rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in article 14 recalls theright of all individuals to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial



35 | P a g e

tribunal established by law, which will determine any criminal charge against him.

Extradition may therefore be refused if the requested State judges that the extraditionmight expose the criminal to treatment in the requesting State that is considered unfair.

The ne bis in idem principle

The ne bis in idem principle is a general principle of criminal law in the majority ofnational systems, according to which no person may be tried or punished in criminalproceedings twice for the same offence(s). It is set out in article 14 of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights. However, application of the principle is generally confined within asingle national system.

In extradition treaties, the principle is traditionally recognized in relation to the requested State,i.e. the extradition will be opposed if the individual concerned has already been acquitted orfinally convicted of the same offence(s) by the requested State.

There is a tendency to apply this principle more widely, particularly within the European Union,where countries undertake to recognize the judicial decisions of all member States. Undercertain conditions, those countries can refuse to execute a European arrest warrant if theindividual has already been convicted by a third State (other than the State that issued theextradition request) for the same offence(s). Nevertheless, there is no general rule ininternational law that obliges countries to apply the ne bis in idem principle, and States are notobliged to enforce decisions passed by foreign jurisdictions.

Example — article 9 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition

“Extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed by the competentauthorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offence or

offences for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competentauthorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences.”

Statute of limitations, amnesty and pardon

In the majority of national laws and bilateral conventions, extradition may not take placeif a basic obstacle, such as a statute of limitations, an amnesty or a pardon, is encountered.

Forms of surrender used as alternatives to extradition

Extradition is a separate concept from deportation or the expulsion of non-nationals,which are unilateral acts that do not involve a request from another State and are aimed atimplementing immigration policy and maintaining public order and security, rather than helpinganother State in the exercise of criminal proceedings.

Extradition is also distinct from surrender procedures in international criminal jurisdictions, as well as those set out on a regional level, such as the European arrest warrant.

Other forms of surrender are used as alternatives to extradition for various reasons.Broadly speaking, the arguments used are that extradition procedures are too unwieldy, that



36 | P a g e

they have failed in the past or that the length of time they take would allow the fugitive to escapeagain.

International law does not stipulate that regulated methods of extradition are the onlymeans that can be used to transfer suspected criminals from one country to another to faceprosecution. However, if States decide not to use such methods, they must still ensure that the

person is surrendered with a minimum necessary adherence to regular procedures that conformto international law, notably instruments relating to human rights. Although extraditionprocedures are often thought to be long and unwieldy, their complexity is a by-product ofproviding minimum guarantees to the investigated persons. A fugitive can indeed be transferredoutside extradition channels in order to bring him or her before a court and buy time, but thiscould lead to the proceedings being annulled in the requesting State.

INTERPOL

International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) is the world’s largestinternational police organization. It was established in 1923 and currently is located in Lyon,France. INTERPOL is an international police organization that seeks to facilitate cross-border

police cooperation and support and seeks to assist organizations whose mission is to prevent orcombat international crime.

As early as 1914, police officers, lawyers, and judges from 14 countries discussedcreating an international police organization in Monaco, but the formation was delayed due toWorld War I and postponed to the Second International Police Congress in Vienna, Austria.The movement stemmed from an emerging agreement that arrest procedures, identificationtechniques, criminal records, and extradition proceedings increasingly require an internationalconsensus and integration in a globalizing world.

Currently consisting of 190 member nations, it is the second largest intergovernmentalorganization after the United Nations. Former US Under Secretary of the Treasury for

Enforcement, Ronald Noble, is the Secretary General of INTERPOL and presides over theGeneral Secretariat of 84 member nations.

Under its constitution, INTERPOL is banned from dealing with political, military, religious,or racial crimes in order to preserve its neutrality. Thus, INTERPOL focuses primarily on broad-ranging issues with international impact, such as:

public safety, terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, environmentalcrime, genocide, war crimes, piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weaponssmuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white collarcrime, computer crime, intellectual property crime, and corruption.

While discussing and issuing policy directives for these issues, INTERPOL works closelywith regional and national police organizations, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),the World In- tellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), theUN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the World CustomsOrganization (WCO).

The founding members (Austria, Belgium, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia) establishedthe ICPO-INTERPOL Constitution and General Regulations, which charges the organization



37 | P a g e

with the duty to assure mutual assistance between criminal police authorities within the limits ofnational laws and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and toestablish and develop institutions to suppress ordinary law crimes.

Unlike normal law enforcement agencies, INTERPOL does not make arrests or processcriminals; instead, it acts as an administrative liaison between different police organizations,

providing communication and database assistance—a job that is vitally important givenlanguage barriers that limit police work across borders.

Unlike the United Nations in its mandate, powers, and responsibilities, INTERPOL hasthe unique capacity to deter international crime in vastly different types of organized crime.

INTERPOL provides secure global police communication services, operational policesupport services, and police training and development. It is governed by a General Assembly,consisting of delegates appointed by member countries, which meets once a year to make allmajor decisions affecting general policy.

The mandate and primary function of INTERPOL is to support the police services of its

member countries in their efforts to prevent crime and conduct criminal investigations asefficiently and effectively as possible. Thus, together with the NCBs, INTERPOL facilitates crossborder police cooperation and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and serviceswhose mission is to prevent or combat crime.

INTERPOL is funded primarily by member country annual statutory contributions. Toassess each member countries’ dues contribution, INTERPOL uses a formula based on thecountries’ economic well being. This formula was renegotiated in the late 1990s andincorporated a gradual increase in the percentage share paid by the wealthiest nations.



38 | P a g e

INTERPOL utilizes a system of color-coded international notices and “diffusions” thatshare crime-related information with each member country.

This information concerns

individuals wanted for serious crimes, missing persons, unidentified bodies, possible threats topublic safety, and criminals’ modus operandi, as described in the following table. As of February2009, INTERPOL had nearly 25,000 active notices, of which most were red.

INTERPOL believes that standards, guidelines, recommendations, and tools whichINTERPOL uses and provides to the international law enforcement community, such as itsdatabases and ‘I-24/7’ secure global police communications network, could be included under

the umbrella of ‘best practices’. INTERPOL’s range of databases alone covers key informationsuch as names of criminals and suspected individuals, search requests for wanted persons,fingerprints, photographs, DNA profiles, stolen vehicles, stolen and lost travel documents, andillicit weapons relating to criminal cases.

INTERPOL’s Constitution (Article 32) requires each member country to appoint a bodyto operate as a national focal point for international law enforcement cooperation within theINTERPOL framework. This appointed body is called a National Central Bureau, or ‘NCB’.



39 | P a g e

NCBs

In furtherance of increasing communications and cooperation within the international lawenforcement community, each INTERPOL member country maintains a National Central Bureau(NCB). The NCB, staffed by highly trained law enforcement officers, is the designated contactpoint for the INTERPOL General Secretariat and other member countries requiring assistance

with transnational investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives. The NCB isalso the national contact point for international enquiries.

In order to achieve these aims, INTERPOL conducts all of its activities within the framework ofthe following four ‘core services’ or ‘functions’:

(1) Secure Global Police Communications Services(2) Operational Data Services and Databases for Police(3) Operational Police Support Services

(4) Training and Development

Through its on-going commitment and dedication to fighting terrorism world-wide,

INTERPOL is dedicated to continuing to improve its existing law enforcement officer network,and to establishing new ones, so that in time, countries all over the world will not only be moreaware of the threats associated with terrorism, but will also have the technical infrastructure,capacities, and capabilities to combat them.

INTERPOL – Philippines

The Philippine Center on Transnational Crime (PCTC), which houses INTERPOLManila, is the national law enforcement agency which carries investigations beyond the bordersof the Philippines. Its priority crime areas include:

Illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances;

Money laundering; Terrorism;

Arms smuggling;

Trafficking in persons;

Piracy;

Any crime, which impacts the stability and security of the Philippines.

The PCTC coordinates all transnational crime operations carried out by othergovernment agencies of the Philippines. It designs new projects to strengthen the country’scombined response and ensures the efficient exchange of information. The PCTC recommendsways to better prevent transnational crime and to detect and apprehend criminals operatingacross borders.

A central database of national and international legislation underpins theserecommendations. Activities are reinforced through training programmes delivered incooperation with national government agencies, other countries and internationalorganizations. The INTERPOL Manila assists the PCTC.

The National Central Bureau (NCB) for the Philippines is an inter-ministerial entity, whichis not part of the Philippine National Police but instead is directly attached to the Office of thePresident. As such it benefits from direct access to the services of all law enforcement agencies



40 | P a g e

in the Philippines. The NCB is referred to as “NALECC-SCILEC” (National Law EnforcementCoordinating Committee - Sub Committee on International Law Enforcement Cooperation).INTERPOL Manila is an integral part of the PCTC. Its mission is to serve as the liaison officeand main coordinating body for international police cooperation on behalf of all law enforcementagencies in the Philippines. Its main duties include:

Monitoring and coordinating law enforcement activities relating to transnationalcrimes affecting the Philippines;

Operating and maintaining an operations center to serve as the focal point forinternational cooperation on transnational crime for all law enforcement agenciesin the Philippines;

Acting as a NALECC Sub Committee in the monitoring of crime and activitieswhich threaten national security and the economy.



41 | P a g e

VII. BIBLOGRAPHY

Article 15 of the European Convention on Extradition.

Cassese, A. (2008). International criminal law . (2nd ed., pp. 3-31). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

INTERPOL. http://www.policija.si/eng/index.php/areasofwork/otherareas/18-interpol

Interpol world model un 2012. (2012). Retrieved from http://worldmun.org/upload/INTERPOL.pdf

Facing History Ourselves. (2012). Nuremberg Trials Fact Sheet. Retrieved November 30, 2012from the World Wide Web: http://tj.facinghistory.org/reading/nuremberg-trials-fact-sheet

United Nation . (2009). Manual on international cooperation in criminal matters related toterrorism.

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2219, No. 39464.

Transnational Organized Crime | National Institute of Justice. (2007, November 15). NationalInstitute of Justice: Criminal Justice Research, Development and Evaluation .Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/transnational-organized-crime/welcome.htm

United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, U., &United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.(1995). Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment ofOffenders. Vienna, Austria: Dept. of International Economic and Social Affairs, Centrefor Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2004). United Nations Convention againstTransnational Organized Crime and the protocols thereto. New York: United Nations.

Van Schaack, B., & Slye, R. (2007.). A concise history of international criminal law. Santa ClaraUniversity School of Law , 07 (42), 7-47.

http://tj.facinghistory.org/reading/nuremberg-trials-fact-sheet




International Criminal Law Lecture Notes

Documents

Transcript of International Criminal Law Lecture Notes