International penal court for ex-Yugoslavia

The International penal court for the ex- Yugoslavia (TPIY or TPY) was instituted the May 25th 1993 by resolution 827 of the Safety advice of the the United Nations, in order to continue and to consider supposed responsible for serious violations of the humane international law on the territory of the ex- Yugoslavia since January 1st 1991, in accordance with the provisions of its statutes. Its seat is located at $the Hague (Netherlands).

Authorities

The judges sit on two levels:
  • three Rooms of first authority: each one made up of 3 judges
  • the Room of Call: 7 judges.

Judges

List as presented on March 13rd, 2007:

  • President : Fausto Pocar (Italy)

  • Vice-president : Kevin Parker (Australia)

  • Presidents de Chambres :

Creation of the Court

Circumstances

It is only as from August 1992 that the world public opinion becomes aware of the atrocity of the acts made in ex-Yugoslavia, thanks to revelations in the American press.

The Safety advice then asked the States and the or not governmental intergovernmental organizations to transmit any information to him which they would have on the crimes being made.

During this time, two projects take form:

  • an Italian project and French who wants the independence of the Penal Court
  • a Russian project and American which places the Court under authority of the Safety advice, without clean independence.

The Council accepted these two projects and preferred the first. It adopted unanimously, the February 22nd 1993, the resolution 808 by which it decided the creation of an independent Court. But the statute of this one had not been voted yet.

It was made thing later three months, by the adoption the May 25th 1993 of the resolution 827, by which the Safety advice approved the statute of the Court and decided to create an International court with an only aim of considering since January 1st, 1991 the people supposed responsible for serious violations of the international humanitarian right made on the territory of ex-Yugoslavia.

The objective of payment of the dispute for the TPIY and the TPIR was laid down at 2010, even if it means to submit certain cases with the national jurisdictions.

Legitimacy

A long debate, which is not yet finished, opposed the partisans and the opponents to this Court. If the idea, that a crime against a population must be punished, is shared, it should be noted that the question arises with regard to the conflicts for which this rule will be applied. Thus, it is notable to note that some very largely criticized this court, while asking, since crimes were to be judged, to be interested in the genocide of the Amerindian , the wars Guerre of Indo-China, Vietnam, of Algérie, etc

In addition, it should be noted that similar court was not instituted to consider soldiers American who would have committed crimes in Afghanistan or in Iraq

Defendants

Since the behavior of its very first audience, the November 8th 1994 (dispossession in the Tadić business), the Court put in charge a total of 161 people, and closed the procedures concerning 100 of them: five were discharged, 48 condemned (seven are on standby transfer, 24 were transferred, 16 purged their sorrow, one condemned is deceased in the course of execution of sorrow), and 11 saw their business returned before a court of ex-Yugoslavia; in addition, 36 businesses were proclaimed finished after either the withdrawal of the bill of indictment or of the death marked (before or after the transfer to the Court). It can confirm, cancel or revise the decisions of first authority.
a new fact, after the lawsuit in 1st authority or call authorizes a demand for revision of the sentence. The imprisonment is done in a State indicated by the Court and chosen among states agreeing to receive condemned. The sorrow is carried out in accordance with the national rules, but under control of the International court which delivers an opinion on the graces or possible commutation of sorrow in the country of the imprisonment.

The States help “without delay” the International court with the research and the judgment of the marked people to have made serious violations of the humane international law.

The Convention of February 13rd, 1946 on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations applies to the International court, the judges, the Prosecutor and his personnel like with the Clerk and his personnel which thus profit from the facilities granted to the diplomatic agents, in accordance with the international law.

Criticisms, interests, limits and prospects

The articles of the statutes of the TPIY expressly refer to the “people supposed responsible” and not to the States, because the general philosophy of the International penal court is to punish the individual responsibilities. The TPIY seeks primarily the people of high ranking suspected of taking a heavy responsibility in the crimes committed in ex-Yugoslavia, but the TPI of $the Hague which was to act quickly had difficulty in obtain the co-operation of certain States to seek and stop some marked. This type of court also seems to be a place and important moment of (Re) constitution of the memory in fact generally hidden by the authors of crimes, which can help to alleviate the tensions prohibiting a true return of peace. The problem of the whole of the after-effects of war, others that economic seems thus in the future to be able to find with being better treated by the international law, because less " indicible".

Following the case of the TPIY, the polemologists and specialists in Victimologie follow with interest the efforts of the TPIR and also its contribution, by the possibility that one them victims to speak, to help with the work of mourning and appeasing of the populations concerned. Let us note that certain personalities or groups or ONGs environmentalists evoked the interest that there would be so that the competence of the international courts can be wide with the crimes against the Environment, as they can be to some extent regarded as kinds of differed crimes, against future humanity.

The lack of means and judges, the time taken by the translations, cause also delay and of difficulty of instruction, evoked by the members of the court and their reports/ratios with UNO, the work of these courts is a long term job, whose final assessment cannot already be produced.

See too

Related articles

Random links:List senators of the Paddle | Formosa (pope) | Lucie Šafářová | List parks and gardens of the Meeting | School of general culture | Commerce_de_Web