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...

...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...

[Nabil M. Orina is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for International Courts (iCourts), Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen. He holds a PhD from City University of Hong Kong.] President Trump’s sanctions against the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (the Court), Fatou Bensouda and the Head of Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko have rightly attracted condemnation from states as well as academic commentary. The sanctions, which have now been revoked underlie a bigger issue in the relationship between the United States of America...

...has shown in the essay linked to above, complementarity is a two-step process, not a one-step process as many scholars assume. The first step asks whether the state is “active” with regard to a case that the OTP wants to pursue — whether, in other words, the state is currently pursuing an investigation or prosecution of the same suspect for the same conduct. If it isn’t active, the case is admissible regardless of whether the state is willing and able to investigate or prosecute. If it is active — and...

...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...

...UNHCR, OHCHR, States, human rights entities, host communities, and refugees themselves are critical partners in these efforts and will remain so. In December 2023, the PIERR was officially launched in the context of the Global Refugee Forum. The PIERR brings together several independent UN and regional human rights experts to work jointly and consider how to best harness efforts to highlight the complementarity of their various mandates to promote and protect the human rights of asylum-seekers and refugees. The current membership of the PIERR includes several UN Special Procedures mandate...