Complementarity: Contest or Collaboration? - FICHL
Complementarity: Contest or Collaboration? - FICHL
Complementarity: Contest or Collaboration? - FICHL
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The Role of Universal Jurisdiction in the International Criminal Court<br />
<strong>Complementarity</strong> System<br />
open in states which, until then, had been reluctant to do so f<strong>or</strong> legal <strong>or</strong><br />
political reasons. Amnesties and statute of limitations, the two main legal<br />
bars f<strong>or</strong> prosecutions, but also superi<strong>or</strong> <strong>or</strong>ders, were set aside later by<br />
courts in Argentina, 21 Bolivia, 22 Chile, 23 Panama, 24 Peru 25 and Uruguay, 26<br />
among other states. 27<br />
In certain instances, the exercise of universal jurisdiction by national<br />
courts could also have an impact on international courts by encouraging<br />
them to act. F<strong>or</strong> example, the likely impact of universal jurisdiction<br />
cases when filed involving Afghanistan, Colombia and Ge<strong>or</strong>gia on the<br />
protracted preliminary examinations of those situations by the ICC Prosecut<strong>or</strong><br />
could encourage him to request auth<strong>or</strong>ization at last to open investigations<br />
in those situations. Such cases are almost invariably opened only<br />
when territ<strong>or</strong>ial states <strong>or</strong> the suspect‟s own state has failed to investigate<br />
<strong>or</strong> prosecute genuinely the crimes. Similarly, if national courts were to<br />
exercise universal jurisdiction over persons suspected of crimes committed<br />
in the Darfur region of Sudan <strong>or</strong> in Uganda, it might well call into<br />
question the genuineness of investigations and prosecutions in those countries<br />
and undermine any admissibility challenges in cases in the International<br />
Criminal Court.<br />
21 Argentina Supreme Court, Priebke, Erich s/ solicitud de extradición, case No.<br />
16.063/94, 2 November 1995; Arancibia Clavel, Enrique Lautaro s/ homicidio calificado<br />
y asociación ilícita y otro, case No. 259, 24 August 2004; and Simón, Héct<strong>or</strong> Julio<br />
y otros s/ privación ilegítima de la libertad, case 17.768, 14 June 2005.<br />
22 Bolivia Supreme Court, case of Masacre de la calle Harrington, 21 April 1993.<br />
23 Chile Supreme Court, Second Chamber, case Rol N°559-04, 13 December 2006.<br />
Santiago Appeals Court, Fifth Chamber, case Rol Nº 11.821-2003, 5 January 2004<br />
and case Rol Nº 24.471-2005, 10 April 2006.<br />
24 Supreme Court of Panama, Heliod<strong>or</strong>o P<strong>or</strong>tugal case, 2 March 2004.<br />
25 Constitutional Court of Peru, case of Genaro Villegas Namuche, Exp.N° 2488-2002-<br />
HC/TC, 18 March 2004; Supreme Court, Alberto Fujim<strong>or</strong>i case, 7 April 2009.<br />
26 Uruguay Supreme Court, Sabalsagaray Curutchet, Blanca Stela case, 19 October<br />
2009; and Greg<strong>or</strong>io Alvarez case, 21 October 2009 (First Instance Court, Judge Luis<br />
Charles).<br />
27 See also N. Roht-Arriaza, The Pinochet Effect: Transitional Justice in the Age of<br />
Human Rights, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.<br />
<strong>FICHL</strong> Publication Series No. 7 (2010) – page 213