Derecho Internacional/ International Law

Posted on

IMG_0901El TPI aplaude la ratificación del Estatuto de Roma por parte de Palestina   
Fuente: La información
El presidente de la Asamblea General del Tribunal Penal Internacional (TPI), Sidiki Kaba, ha aplaudido este miércoles el depósito por parte de Palestina de los instrumentos de acceso al Estatuto de Roma, paso previo para su entrada oficial en el organismo.
“Cada ratificación del Estatuto de Roma constituye un progreso hacia la universalidad. Pido a todos los miembros de Naciones Unidas que se unan a este sistema de justicia internacional permanente e independiente para luchar contra la impunidad y evitar los crímenes más graves bajo el Derecho Internacional”, ha dicho.
El secretario general de la ONU, Ban Ki Moon, ha confirmado este mismo miércoles que el Estado de Palestina será miembro del TPI a partir del 1 de abril. La incorporación a la corte internacional con sede en La Haya permitirá a la Autoridad Palestina denunciar al Gobierno de Israel por crímenes de guerra y también posibilitará que los grupos de milicianos palestinos puedan ser procesados.
El presidente de la Autoridad Palestina, Mahmud Abbas, presentó la candidatura palestina al TPI la semana pasada, lo que provocó las críticas del Ejecutivo de Israel, que lidera el primer ministro, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Por su parte, el Gobierno de Estados Unidos ha dudado de la legitimidad de Palestina para formar parte del TPI porque no es un Estado soberano. “No cumple los requisitos”, ha dicho en rueda de prensa la portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Jen Psaki.
A principios de diciembre de 2014, el TPI anunció la aceptación de Palestina como estado observador, una victoria para Palestina, que hasta ahora participaba en las reuniones de la corte como ‘entidad observadora’.

 

IMG_0900European Court of Human Rights Orders France to Pay Damages to Somali Pirates.   
Fuente: International Law Girls
he European Court of Human Rights recently issued a decision (Ali Samatar and Others v. France and Hassan and Others v. France) ruling that French authorities had violated the rights of Somali pirates, when they held them in custody for an additional 48 hours on French soil, before officially charging them with specific crimes.  One group of piracy suspects was held for four days before being transferred on to French soil, and another group was held for slightly over six days before being transferred to France and charged before a judicial authority; the Court held that these delays were justified, because of the existence of “completely exceptional circumstances” noting that the original arrests took place thousands of miles from French territory.  However, the Court held that the additional 48-hour delay on French soil violated the suspects’ rights to liberty and security under the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(3).  In fact, the European Court judges held that French authorities had ample time to draw up the official charges against these piracy suspects, while the suspects were held overseas (for four and six days respectively), and that the additional delay on French soil could not be justified because, according to a formal statement by the Court, “[t]he convention’s Article 5.3 was not designed to give the authorities the opportunity to intensify their investigations for the purpose of bringing formal charges against the suspects.”  The Court did not fault French authorities for arresting the suspects abroad, or question the legality of such overseas arrests and detention practices.  The Court ordered France to pay damages in the amount of 9,000 Euros to one group of pirates, and 7,000 Euros to the other.
These particular pirates had attacked two different French vessels in 2008 and had kidnapped multiple hostages.  The hostages were released in exchange for multi-million dollar ransoms, and the pirates were subsequently apprehended by the French military on the Somali coast.  The European Court of Human Rights decision awarding damages to this group of pirates has been heavily criticized by maritime organizations, such as the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), as well as seafarers’ support groups, such as the Maritime Piracy Humanitarian Response Programme (MPHRP).  An IMB spokesman stated that “There are practical difficulties with respect to the gathering of evidence and transporting of the alleged perpetrators when a crime is committed at sea, thousands of miles from where the court proceedings take place, compared to a crime committed ashore,” and expressed concern that the Court decision would discourage other European nations from taking appropriate enforcement action against suspected pirates.  Roy Paul, program director for MPHRP, voiced even stronger criticism of this decision: “The claim this constituted a ‘violation of their rights to freedom and security’ is an insult to the seafarers and yachtsmen they attacked as surely this is the true violation of the seafarers’ rights to freedom and security. These pirates, in my opinion, gave up any of their rights when they set sail to attack innocent seafarers who were simply doing their essential work.”
Article 5(3) of the European Convention, which French authorities violated according to the above decision, states as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise  judicial  power and shall be entitled to trail within a reasonable time or to release  pending trial…”
In addition to a violation of Article 5(3), the Court also found that French authorities had breached Article 5(1) (right to liberty and security) in the Hassan and Others case, because the French system applicable at the time “had not sufficiently guaranteed the applicants’ right to their liberty.”

 

IMG_0893CIADI rechaza un pedido de nulidad de fallo a favor de Argentina  
Fuente: La Información
El Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias relativas a Inversiones (CIADI), tribunal que depende del Banco Mundial, rechazó un pedido de nulidad de un fallo a favor de Argentina presentado por una firma financiera integrante del grupo alemán Daimler, informó hoy el Gobierno argentino.
El jefe de Gabinete argentino, Jorge Capitanich, dijo hoy en rueda de prensa que un comité de este tribunal rechazó la presentación realizada por la firma alemana contra un laudo favorable a Argentina dictado en 2012.
La demanda había sido iniciada en agosto de 2004 por Daimler Financial Services, que alegó ver afectados sus negocios en Argentina a raíz de las diversas medidas económicas adoptadas en el marco de la severa crisis de 2001-2002.
Daimler alegó que las medidas violaban el tratado de inversiones bilaterales entre Argentina y Alemana y, bajo ese argumento, presentó una demanda contra el país suramericano por 447 millones de euros.
“El tribunal de CIADI que entendió en el caso, dictó un laudo el 22 agosto de 2012 en el que prevaleció la posición de la República Argentina diciendo que el tribunal del CIADI carecía de jurisdicción y por lo tanto no podía entender en el reclamo presentado por el demandante”, explicó Capitanich.
Argentina argumentó ante el tribunal que el tratado bilateral establecía que en caso de un conflicto relativo a inversiones el demandante debía acudir primero a tribunales argentinos antes de presentarse ante el CIADI.

 

A-stack-of-files-001General Ríos Montt acude a juicio por genocidio   
Fuente: El Informador
GUATEMALA, GUATEMALA (05/ENE/2015).- En una camilla, pálido y ataviado con un pijama el ex dictador guatemalteco José Efraín Ríos Montt llegó el lunes a la sala del tribunal que lo juzgará por genocidio y delitos contra los deberes de la humanidad.

El tribunal le había dado una hora de plazo para que acudiera a la cita luego que rechazar una excusa médica que había presentado su defensa, según la cual el general no estaba en condiciones de salud para acudir a las audiencias del proceso.
La presidenta del tribunal Jeannette Valdez también rechazó la solicitud de separarse del caso hecha por la defensa aduciendo que “se observa una estrategia para obstaculizar” el juicio, dijo la jueza.
El tribunal resuelve en estos momentos otros recursos legales que la defensa introdujo para evitar que se inicie el juicio.
Quien sí se presentó al debate fue el general Mauricio Rodríguez, ex jefe de inteligencia de Ríos Montt. “Estoy listo para el nuevo juicio, quiero salir de una vez de esta humillación” dijo Rodríguez, quien aseguró que padece de Leucemia.
Mientras, las víctimas esperan el inicio del debate. Una de ellas es Magdalena Bernal de Paz, de 88 años. Bernal fue la testigo número 57 en declarar en el primer juicio a Ríos Montt, condenado el 10 de mayo de 2013 a 80 años de prisión por la muerte de mil 771 indígenas ixiles durante su gobierno de facto (1982-1983). Pero 10 días después, la Corte de Constitucionalidad anuló el juicio y la sentencia y ordenó un nuevo proceso.
Con la ayuda de su nieta, quien traduce de su idioma ixil al español, Bernal habló con The Associated Press en su casa de piso de tierra y paredes de adobe en Nebaj Quiché, 250 kilómetros al norte de la capital guatemalteca.
La anciana dijo que aunque quisiera no puede volver al tribunal en la capital guatemalteca porque su salud está muy delicada.
En el primer juicio Bernal recordó cuando el ejército de Guatemala llegó a su comunidad en 1982, robó y quemó las viviendas y la obligó a refugiarse junto con sus hijos en las montañas para salvar su vida.
“Quemaron las mazorcas, la casa, la ropa, ellos nos dejaron sin nada… todo se perdió”, dijo.
Los testimonios de Clemente Vásquez, Antonio Chen y José Velasco, ya fallecidos, al igual que el de Bernal quedarán fuera del nuevo juicio. “Ya lo dicho una vez es suficiente, si quieren que lo vuelva a contar será aquí” en su comunidad, aseguró la anciana.
Guatemala vivió una cruenta guerra civil entre 1960 y 1996 que finalizó con la firma de acuerdos de paz. Según Naciones Unidas, unas 245 mil personas fueron muertas o desaparecidas. La ONU responsabilizó al ejército y los grupos paramilitares de 97 % de esos crímenes.
IMG_0787España solo contratará en países de origen para tareas agrícolas de temporada 
Fuente: El Universo
El Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social de España ha prorrogado para el 2015 la orden que regula la gestión colectiva de contrataciones en origen, pero limitándola a las campañas agrícolas de temporada y para los países con los que se haya firmado un acuerdo de regulación de flujos migratorios.
Los países con los que España tiene suscritos acuerdos sobre regulación y ordenación de flujos migratorios son Colombia, Ecuador, Marruecos, Mauritania, Ucrania y República Dominicana; o, subsidiariamente, instrumentos de colaboración en esta materia: Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Cabo Verde, Senegal, Mali, Níger, México, el Salvador, Filipinas, Honduras, Paraguay y Argentina.
“El mantenimiento de la gestión con estos países para campañas agrícolas se debe a que se considera que es una buena práctica de migración circular y refuerza la cooperación con los países de origen”, dice la Orden ESS/2505/2014 de 29 de diciembre, publicada en el Boletín Oficial del Estado corresponde al 1 de enero del 2015.
La nueva orden prorroga la vigencia de la Orden ESS/1/2012, de 5 de enero del 2012, por la que se regula la gestión colectiva de contrataciones en origen, “exclusivamente a los efectos de la contratación de trabajadores para campañas agrícolas de temporada y teniendo en cuenta lo dispuesto en el artículo 39.3 de la Ley Orgánica 4/2000, de 11 de enero, sobre derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su integración social”.
De este modo, la Dirección General de Migraciones, previa valoración del expediente y a través de la Misión Diplomática u Oficina Consular, remitirá las ofertas que se presenten al órgano encargado de la preselección en el país que corresponda y acordará con sus autoridades competentes y con el ofertante, la fecha, el lugar y la metodología para la selección de los trabajadores.
Además, la selección de los trabajadores se llevará a cabo por una comisión que estará formada por los representantes de la Dirección General de Migraciones y de la correspondiente Misión Diplomática, por los órganos competentes en el país de origen y, a elección del empleador, por sus representantes directamente o por organizaciones empresariales. Será obligatoria la participación de los empleadores ofertantes cuando el volumen de la oferta o el perfil profesional solicitado lo haga necesario, así como cuando se vayan a realizar pruebas prácticas a los trabajadores.

 

E667E303-E527-42B7-8852-817CC3184CCBThe ICC and beyond: tipping the scales of international justice  
Fuente: Open Democracy
International Criminal Court developments in 2014 have certainly been important, but we must also look to key events in regional and national institutions that are pushing the evolution of international law.
This has been a busy and interesting year for international criminal justice, with noted developments at the international, regional and national levels. While most of the prominent developments were at the international level relating to the operation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), these have not occurred without intense debate. But we must look beyond these institutions to other types of courts and tribunals that have influenced international law this year. Not all the developments have been positive, of course.  And some—such as the failure to prosecute Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta—have inspired outright despair. But these negative incidences must be weighed against all the positive advances. Looking at 2014 as a whole, there were many developments that inform the way we view and understand international criminal justice.
First, there was the conviction by the ICC of Congolese warlord Germain Katanga, which inspired mixed reactions. Katanga was convicted, as an accessory, on one charge of murder as a crime against humanity, and four counts of war crimes (murder, attacking a civilian population, destruction of property and pillaging) for an attack on a village in Bogoro. Katanga was acquitted on charges of recruitment of child soldiers and sexual violence. While some celebrated his conviction as a victory for international criminal justice, others bemoaned the delays and the fact that he was acquitted on other charges. The ICC Office of the Prosecutor initially appealed Katanga’s sentence (12 years, of which he will only serve six) but later decided to discontinue its appeal. In the absence of other trials related to the Bogoro attack, both at the ICC and at national level, justice for these particular victims might never be fully realised.
The second key development was the UNSC attempt to refer the Syrian situation to the ICC, which was thwarted by China and Russia. This development accurately put the spotlight on the UNSC as the institution that should act in the interests of peace, security and justice – especially the latter, given the powers it has under the Rome Statute to refer the situation in non-state parties to the ICC. It is interesting to note that the three African countries currently on the UNSC, Rwanda, Chad and Nigeria, all voted for this referral. While the vote failed, the support lent by these three African countries (and others outside of the UNSC who voiced support) shows that they still remain committed to international justice. The veto by China and Russia illuminates the inherent challenge of UNSC referrals (or rather, attempts at referral). And as other contributors to this discussion note, the UNSC is a political rather than judicial body and is limited by the political will of its veto members. It is this veto power that many African states continue to criticise. At the 13th Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute, Malawi’s Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Samuel Tembenu, echoed the views of several states saying that in respect of international crimes, states should not be allowed to exercise their veto power.
Third, the ICC finally concluded its trial of former Congolese vice president Jean-Pierre Bemba. The court will hand down their ruling in due course, but whichever way it goes the prosecution alone was significant: it was the first completed prosecution of a former senior government official by the ICC. It is particularly significant given developments at the African Union (AU), where there is support for ensuring the immunity of senior government officials.
The fourth key development, and perhaps the most lamented, was the withdrawal of the ICC’s case against Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta. The prosecutor had requested an adjournment of the case, citing the lack of cooperation from the Kenyan authorities. The request did not specify the length of the postponement, inciting critics to argue that continued and/or indefinite postponement would mean that for the 20,000 victims in the case, justice might be delayed to a point of denial. This concern was especially acute since little, if anything has been done at the domestic level to prosecute individuals for the atrocities committed during the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya. In its 3 December decision, the ICC Trial Chamber rejected the prosecution’s request for further adjournment and directed the prosecution to either withdraw the charges or proceed to trial. The prosecutor’s decision to withdraw will only increase the criticism against the ICC, illustrating Mue’s fears that Kenyatta’s case was “hang[ing] by a thread”.
At the continental level in Africa, the most notable development was the adoption by the AU of the Draft Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights. The Protocol expands the jurisdiction of the existing Court (which will be known as the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples Rights), to allow it to prosecute international crimes, unconstitutional changes in government, terrorism and a variety of transnational crimes.
This protocol is certainly a step forward, yet it leaves African heads of states and governments, as well as senior government officials, immune from prosecution while in office, which is highly contentious. There are, of course, those who believe that immunity from prosecution is necessary (at least for heads of state). On the other hand, others believe that no one should be above the law, irrespective of what office they hold. The latter also equate immunity to the promotion of impunity. The Court will only come into existence once 15 AU member states ratify the protocol.
 At the national level in Africa, some progress, albeit limited, has been made to investigate and prosecute international crimes. The Ugandan International Crimes Division of the High Court continues to trudge along, despite challenges in bringing perpetrators of international crimes to justice. In the DRC, the mobile gender justice courts and the military courts have made significant strides in investigating and prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity. More recently, in South Africa, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the country’s laws provide for a form of universal jurisdiction that obliges the police (and eventually the prosecution) to act in respect of allegations of international crimes committed outside of South Africa’s borders. The decision means that by law the South African police must investigate, among others, allegations of torture in Zimbabwe that have been brought to their attention. The challenge here will be to ensure the implementation of this ruling.
The past year has indeed been a year of successes, as well as some failures and delays. And while the ICC is important, these examples illustrate how it is not the only tool that exists to enforce international law. Investments in regional and national bodies are equally important, if not more so, to appropriately bring perpetrators to justice at all levels.

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s