Search: Complementarity SAIF GADDAFI

...liberty, see IAComHR Coard paras 52‒61; ECtHR Hassan para 105). In general, it is a positive development that the HRC correlates violations of IHL and article 6 ICCPR in relation to the conduct of hostilities. First, this reinforces the perspective of complementarity between the ICCPR and IHL based on the fact that, to an extent, they protect the same values (HRC 2006 Concluding Observations: USA para 5). And secondly, this may expand the ability of victims of IHL violations to obtain redress. Indeed, States have an obligation under article 2(3)...

...that there were reasonable grounds to believe that ‘false positives’ could amount to crimes against humanity of murder and enforced disappearance and prioritized these crimes to continue its complementarity assessment. The assessment was concluded in 2021, when the OTP decided to close the preliminary examination arguing that Colombian authorities were “neither inactive, unwilling nor unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes.” This despite the fact that human rights organizations had expressed their criticism of the results that the Colombian government presented to the OTP, including the lack of...

...is no reason to believe that a crime within the Court’s jurisdiction has been committed in the situation (a very low standard) or that the situation does not satisfy the admissibility requirements of Article 17, which deals with complementarity and gravity. That’s Article 53(3)(b). I think it is very unlikely that Moreno-Ocampo will decline to investigate the Libyan situation. But it’s interesting to note that he can — and that, if he based a declination on complementarity or gravity grounds, there is nothing the Pre-Trial Chamber could do about it....

...to a remedy. In this respect, the question is whether HRL, which also applies in armed conflicts, may provide individuals with a procedural remedy for unlawful harm suffered in war time. Systemic integration between IHL and HRL The relationship between IHL and HRL may be considered from two perspectives: competition and complementarity. Generally, whenever two rules belonging to the different regimes are both applicable and in competition, human rights treaties are interpreted taking into account IHL rules (ICJ Nuclear Weapons, para. 25; HRCtee GC31, para. 11). For instance, the human...

...doubtful. What they would do, most likely, is prosecute their national themselves — serious prosecutions, not the kind that the U.S. reserves for its own war criminals. And then, of course, the principle of complementarity would require the ICC to defer to them — which is exactly the point of complementarity. One cannot solve the perennial problem of “who will guard the guardians” by handing over authority to prosecutors and courts. But that is what the universal jurisdiction agenda boils down to. Mr. Garzon’s comeuppance should be a warning to...

...on states, not just on the ICC. An examination of complementarity, for example, that looks at how the ICC ‘looks down’ on how states deal with atrocity crimes, should also properly assess how states are dealing with these international crimes. Clark does this to some extent in his exploration of domestic prosecutions, amnesties, peace negotiations and community-based responses to atrocity crimes. However, his point of departure, here, seems to be that states – in contrast to the ICC – offer justice that is not ‘distant’. They do, after all, have...

...two prosecutorial staffers by name who might be subject to visa restrictions and other punitive measures—the Prosecutor’s Chef de Cabinet and the head of the Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division (JCCD) (even though neither would likely be involved in any actual investigation were one to materialize)—and threatened to also sanction the family members of ICC personnel. Experienced U.S. diplomats, including several who served under Republican and Democratic Administrations as U.S. Ambassadors-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, along with former Nuremberg Prosecutor Ben Ferencz, immediately decried this startling and counter-productive move, pronouncing...

...to think an otherwise justifiable proprio motu investigation is nevertheless not in the interests of justice — that’s Art. 53(1)(c). But it also means that the PTC cannot review the OTP’s determination that the potential case or cases in the situation are admissible — that’s Art. 53(1)(b). That may seem like a small thing, but it’s not. Admissibility comprises two of the most critical aspects of the OTP’s decision to open a proprio motu investigation (or any investigation, for that matter): complementarity and gravity (Art. 17). The Afghanistan decision thus...

...adhere to treaties, rather than delegation of equivalent jurisdictional titles by the state.” Any other understanding could make way for notable accountability gaps by implying that a state that is unable to exercise jurisdiction over certain parts of its territory would no longer be able to investigate or prosecute perpetrators, or reach out to international jurisdiction. Similarly, this would also render the Rome Statute’s provision on complementarity obsolete. In its response to the amici observations, the OTP argues that any limitation to Palestine’s enforcement jurisdiction arising from Oslo “does not...

...child testimony, effectively silencing victims. The discussion emphasized that international stakeholders must collaborate with national counterparts to transform these legal frameworks and enhance complementarity, ensuring that accountability is rooted in communities’ understanding and needs. Local civil-society organizations, deeply embedded in the affected communities, play fundamental roles in ensuring engagement is ethical and effective. Participants described justice not as flowing in one direction but both upwards and downward, from community healing to international adjudication, each reinforcing the other. They repeatedly emphasised that accountability cannot be effective unless it resonates at the...

...universal jurisdiction and positive complementarity, states are encouraged to domestically investigate and prosecute crimes that have international character, or that would otherwise attract the jurisdiction of international courts. In this respect, states are increasingly passing legislation to permit the prosecution of international crimes in domestic settings, including by setting up specialized tribunals or court divisions with the existing judicial structure of a state. A recent notable example is the Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic, set up to prosecute crimes in the aftermath of its recent civil war....

...question about truth commissions, because you can’t say a priori which ones are a reasonable response to the situation, and which ones are a cover-up. It’s going to require extreme care by the prosecutor. There may be some problem there with the capacity to subvert those processes if they are reasonable, and we’ll just have to hope that the institutions within the court take a sensible view about it. But complementarity extends to covering internal processes which don’t necessarily involve prosecutions of individuals, so there’s no reason why the principle...