Criminal Law
Ali Rahmati; Hossein M. M. Sadeghi
Abstract
According to reports from international institutions and organizations, including Human Rights Watch, High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International, Myanmar Muslims, and in particular the ethnic and religious minority of Rohingya Muslims, have been pursuing discriminatory policies and ...
Read More
According to reports from international institutions and organizations, including Human Rights Watch, High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International, Myanmar Muslims, and in particular the ethnic and religious minority of Rohingya Muslims, have been pursuing discriminatory policies and the criminal acts of the Myanmar government and its Buddhist residents since decades. Meanwhile, the recent human tragedy and the terrible crimes committed against the Rohingya Muslims, which have been accompanied by the government of Myanmar and the military regime of the country, have more and more been faced with the response of the international community. Given the correspondence of these crimes with actus reus and mens rea of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity, prosecution of those perpetrators at both national and international levels is debatable. At the national level, the Myanmar Courts, based on two principles of territorial jurisdiction and nationality jurisdiction and third countries courts based on the universality principle (Subject to the identification of such a principle in their internal laws) may interfere. More importantly, the mechanisms available at the international level include the referral of the status to the International Criminal Court or the formation of the Particular International Criminal Court by the United Nations Security Council. In addition, there is also an intermediary mechanism, which is a hybrid or internationalized court that can be formed on the basis of an agreement between the Government of Myanmar and the Security Council. In this paper, the pros and cons of each of these courts is reviewed in order to handling of recent crimes committed in Myanmar.
MohammadAli Ardebili; Neda Mirfallah Nasiri
Abstract
In order to militate against the impunity of perpetrators of grave and significant crimes having international character and also to prevent commission of international crimes, “the duty to extradite or prosecute” is provided for in various conventions and treaties. The duty is loaded with ...
Read More
In order to militate against the impunity of perpetrators of grave and significant crimes having international character and also to prevent commission of international crimes, “the duty to extradite or prosecute” is provided for in various conventions and treaties. The duty is loaded with the meaning that the state in which the person accused of international crime has been arrested, must choose between the options of prosecution or extradition. This rule during the time since the seventeenth century when it was set out by Grotius in “The Law of War and Peace” book, have witnessed various developments. Being set on ILC’s agenda, this subject of international Criminal law has been attached with more significance. Despite frequent use of this maxim in various international conventions, there is no doubt about the treaty nature of this commitment, but its customary character is highly controversial amongst scholars. This essay is to scrutinize and analyze the mentioned different aspects of the obligation to “Extradite or Prosecute” (aut dedere aut judicare) in several international conventions and also, the possibility of having such a rule in legal system of Iran.