Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. See Michael P. Scharf, “Conceptualizing violence: present and future developments in international law: Panel II: adjudicating violence: problems confronting international law and policy on war crimes and crimes against humanity: The Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic: an appraisal of the first international war crimes trial since Nuremberg,” Alb. Law Review, Vol 60, 1997, p 861; Theodor Meron, “Centennial essay: reflections on the prosecution of war crimes by international tribunals,” American Journal of International Law, Vol 100, 2006, p 551. 2. See Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, S.C. Res. 827, UN Doc S/RES/827 (May 25, 1993); and Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, S.C. Res. 955, UN Doc S/RES/955 (November 8, 1994). 3. See Patricia M. Wald, “Symposium: The Nuremberg Trials: a reappraisal and their legacy: running the trial of the century: the Nuremberg legacy,” Cardozo Law Review, Vol 27, 2006, p 1559; Laura A. Dickson, “The promise of hybrid courts,” American Journal of International Law, Vol 97, 2003, p 295. 4. See the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, http://www.cpa-iraq.org/human_rights/Statute.htm (accessed December 21, 2006); see also Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the Establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/617/97/PDF/N0661797.pdf?OpenElement (accessed December 26, 2006). 5. See the Organic Law No 40/01/2001 Setting up “Gacaca jurisdiction” and Organizing Prosecutions for Offences Constituting the Crime of Genocide or Crimes against Humanity Committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, http://www.wihl.nl (accessed December 12, 2006); in Bosnia and Herzegovina see the Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, http://www.sudbih.govba/files/docs/zakoni/en/Zakon_o_sudu_-_eng.pdf (accessed December 26, 2006). 6. In Belgium see e.g. Linda Keller, “Belgian jury to decide case concerning Rwandan genocide,” American Society of International Law Insights, http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh72.htm (accessed December 27, 2006). 7. See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm (accessed December 27, 2006). 8. For more details on situations and cases before the ICC, see http://www.icc-cpi.int/cases.html (accessed December 26, 2006). 9. See Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), p 49: “I do not think that it wise to claim that international and domestic prosecutions for war crimes and other horrors themselves create an international moral and legal order, prevent genocides, or forge the political transformation of previously oppressed regimes.” 10. For the debate on this challenge see Dwight G. Newman, “The Rome Statute, some reservations concerning amnesties, and a distributive problem,” American University International Law Review, Vol 20, 2005, p 293. 11. See Eric Blumenson, “The challenge of a global standard of justice: peace, pluralism, and punishment at the International Criminal Court,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol 44, 2006, p 801: “Such institutions as the South African TRC, with its amnesties conditioned on confession, should also be recognized as a human rights advance, and in certain circumstances a necessary and morally acceptable option for the ICC.” See also Celina Schocken, “Note, the Special Court for Sierra Leone: overview and recommendations,” Berkeley Journal International Law, Vol 20, 2002, p 458 (referring to the South African TRC as “one of the best models” of a truth commission); Kim L. Robinson, “Book note, out of America: a black man confronts Africa,” Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, Vol 5, 1999, pp 301–302 (“[t]he TRC undoubtedly is a hopeful development in Africa that will be a model for countries throughout the continent.”). 12. See Luis Moreno-Ocampo, “Integrating the work of the ICC into local justice initiatives,” Keynote Address: Symposium: International Criminal Tribunals in the 21st Century, American University International Law Review, Vol 21, 2006, p 497: “We need your support to achieve this: scholars and others must help to develop standards, and engage other actors to think not just about the elements of crimes or cross-examination, but also about an integrated approach.” See also M. Cherif Bassiouni, “The perennial conflict between international criminal justice and realpolitik,” Georgia State University Law Review, Vol 22, 2006, p 541. 13. UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, February 18, 2005, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/111/03/PDF/G0511103.pdf?OpenElement (accessed November 26, 2006). 14. Carlos S. Nino, “The duty to punish past abuses of human rights put into context: the case of Argentina,” Yale Law Journal, Vol 100, 1991, p 2619 (he argues that prosecution should be considered in a case by case basis taking into consideration factual context and the complex causal chains leading to the violation of human rights). 15. See Michael P. Scharf, “The amnesty exception to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,” Cornell International Law Journal, Vol 32, 1999, p 507: “Since there is no international duty to prosecute crimes against humanity, or war crimes in an internal conflict, an amnesty for peace deal would not violate international law.” 16. Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, op cit, pp 25–51. 17. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 311, T.I.A.S. No 3362, U.N.T.S., Vol 75, p 31 [hereinafter Geneva Convention I]; Art. 51 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3217, T.I.A.S. No 3363, U.N.T.S., Vol 75, p 85 [hereinafter Geneva Convention II]; Art. 130 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, T.I.A.S. No 3364, U.N.T.S., Vol 75, p 135 [hereinafter Geneva Convention III]; and Art. 147 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, T.I.A.S. No 3365, U.N.T.S., Vol 75, p 287 [hereinafter Geneva Convention IV]. 18. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December 9, 1948, U.N.T.S., Vol 78, p 277. 19. Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. UN DocA/39/51/1984. The number of parties to the Torture Convention as at September 2006, www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2006/lt4399.html (accessed December 28, 2006). 20. See Art. 49 of Geneva Convention I, Art. 50 Geneva Convention II, Art. 129 of the Geneva Convention III, and Art. 146 of Geneva Convention IV. 21. For details on international and national instruments on the duty to prosecute war crimes see Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, eds, Customary International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), Vol II: Practice, Part 2, pp 3941–4016. 22. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), June 8, 1977, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/475-760010?OpenDocument (accessed January 3, 2007). 23. See Prosecutor v Tadic, IT-94-1-T, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, October 2, 1995, para 79, http://www.un.org/icty/tadic/appeal/decision-e/51002.htm. 24. Art. 50, Geneva Convention I; Art. 51, Geneva Convention II; Art. 130, Geneva Convention II; and Art. 147, Geneva Convention IV. 25. Michael Scharf, “The letter of the law: the scope of the international legal obligation to prosecute human rights crimes,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol 59, 1996, p 4; Angelo Gitti, “Impunity under national law and accountability under international human rights law: has the time of a duty to prosecute come?,” Italian Year Book of International Law, Vol 9, 1999, p 64. 26. See Prosecutor v Tadic, IT-94-1-T, para 83; Art. 4 of the Statute of International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/basicdocs/statute.html; Art. 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm; Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1999/1, para 2, UN Doc E/CN.4/RES/1999/1 (Situation of Human Rights in Sierra Leone). 27. See Naomi Roht-Arriaza, “Combating impunity: some thoughts on the way forward,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol 59, 1996, p 93. 28. Newman, “The Rome Statute,” op cit; Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, “The International Criminal Court and national amnesty laws,” American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol 93, 1999, p 65. 29. Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, op cit, p 4043; see also Letter from Dr. Toni Pfanner, Head of the Legal Division, ICRC Headquarters, Geneva, to Naomi Roht-Arriaza. 30. Amnesty can always be challenged in national courts and international fora: see e.g. Art. 10 of the Statute creating the Sierra Leone Court, January 16, 2002, http://www.sc-sl.org/scsl-statute.html, which states: “An amnesty granted to any person falling within the jurisdiction of the Special Court in respect of the crimes referred to in Articles 2 and 4 of the present Statute shall not be a bar to prosecution.” 31. See Michael P. Scharf, “The amnesty exception to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,” Cornell International Law Journal, Vol 32, 1999, p 512 (“Amnesty is not equivalent to impunity”). 32. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Summary of Judgment of February 14, 2002, http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2002/ipresscom2002-04bis_ cobe_20020214.htm (accessed December 2006). 33. As of November 1, 2006, there were 41 signatories and 140 parties. 34. San Marino was the 143rd State Party to CAT: see http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/. 35. For the discussion on this principle see Cherif Bassiouni and Edward Wise, Aud Dedere Aut Judicare. The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995), p 49. 36. See Regina v Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others; Ex Parte Pinochet; Regina v Evans and Another and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others; Ex Parte Pinochet (On Appeal from a Decisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division), http://www.trial-ch.org/ fileadmin/user_upload/documents/trialwatch/pinochet_III.doc. 37. See e.g. UN Committee against Torture, Decision Concerning Communications 1/1988, 2/1988 and 3/1988 (Argentina), 23/11/1989 (A/45/44), para 7.2; Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture: Peru. 15/11/99 (A/55/44), para 59(g); Senegal, 09/07/96 (A/51/44), para 112; Senegal, 09/07/96 (A/51/44), para 112. 38. See Namoni Roth-Arriaza, “Sources in international treaties of an obligation to investigate, prosecute, and provide redress,” in Naomi Roth-Arriaza, ed., Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p 29; Gitti, “Impunity under national law,” op cit, p 70; Scharf, “The amnesty exception,” op cit. 39. General Comments under Art. 40, para 4 of the Covenant, Report of the Human Rights Committee, 37 UN GAOR Supp. (No 40); see also Roth-Arriaza, “Sources in international treaties,” op cit, p 29. 40. Case of Klass and others (F.R.G.), 28 European Court of Human Rights (Series A) (1978); see also comments of Roth-Arriaza, “Sources in international treaties,” op cit, p 34. 41. See Velasquez Rodriguez case, July 29, 1988, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Series C), No 4, para 166, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/b_11_12d.htm; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, November 27, 1998, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Series C), No 42, paras 170–171, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/C/42-ing.html. 42. Cherif Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2003), pp 173–174, Leila Nadya Sadat, “Exile, amnesty and international law,” University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law Review, March 2006, p 81. 43. Scharf, “The amnesty exception,” op cit; M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law (Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp 82–88; Edelenbos, “Human rights violation: a duty to prosecute,” Leiden Journal of International Law, 1994, 7, p 21; D. Orentlicher, “Settling accounts: the duty to prosecute human rights violations of a prior regime,” Yale Law Journal, Vol 100, 1991, pp 2585, 2593. 44. Human Rights Committee, 22nd Session, 529th meeting, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Art. 40 of the Covenant (Chile), quoted in Roth-Arriaza, “Sources in international treaties,” op cit, p 42. 45. Human Rights Committee, 29th Session, 719th meeting, Consideration of Reports (El Salvador), quoted in Roth-Arriaza, “Sources in international treaties,” op cit, p 42. 46. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2005, War Crimes in Africa, s. 585(c) Public Law 108–447, 108th Congress, December 8, 2004, http://www.dsca.osd.mil/programs/LPA/2005/getdoc.cgi_dbname = 108_cong_public_lawsanddocid = f_publ447.108.pdf (accessed December 12, 2006). 47. See Preamble of the Organic Law No 40/01/2001 Setting up “Gacaca jurisdition” and Organizing Prosecutions for Offences Constituting the Crime of Genocide or Crimes against Humanity Committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, http://www.wihl.nl (accessed December 12, 2006). 48. See e.g. Law No 2005 creating the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court, http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/documents/IST_statute_unofficialenglish.pdf; the Belgian Law of June 16, 1993, Relative to the Repression of Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, http://www.wihl.nl; Cambodian Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers, as amended, October 27, 2004 (NS/RKM/1004/006), http://www.cambodia.govkh/krt/pdfs/KR%20Law%20as%20amended%2027%20Oct%202004%20Eng.pdf); Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, http://www.sc-sl.org/scsl- statute.html); Canadian Criminal Code, http://www.wihl.nl. 49. Case No 1/9 First/2005, http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/documents/dujail_opinion_pt1.pdf (accessed December 20, 2006). 50. See Case X-KR-05/58, http://www.sudbih.govba/?opcija = predmetiandid = 31andjezik = e (accessed December 20, 2006). 51. See Paul R. Dubinsky, “Human rights law meets private law harmonization: the coming conflict,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol 30, 2005, p 211: “Universal jurisdiction refers to the circumstances in which a state can apply its law to conduct that takes place outside its borders and that lacks any connection to the forum state.” 52. See Amnesty International, “Universal jurisdiction: the duty of states to enact and implement legislation,” September 2001, AI Index IOR 53/2001, http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engior530092001?OpenDocument (accessed December 21, 2006). 53. For reference on specific cases for these countries see Dubinsky, “Human rights law meets private law harmonization,” op cit, p 51. 54. See Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium, op cit, para 2; see Art. 7 of the 1985 Criminal Code of Canada 1985; ss. 9 and 11 of the Australian War Crimes Act of 1945, as amended in 1988; Art. 689-I of the Code of Criminal Procedure; s 6(1) and (9) and s. 7(2) of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) as interpreted by the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). 55. See Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, op cit, p 393. 56. The 1992 Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) to Investigate War Crimes and Other Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia (1992 Yugoslavia Commission of Experts); 1994 Independent Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 935 (1994) to Investigate Grave Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda (the 1994 Rwanda Commission of Experts), and the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 (2004) to Investigate Reports of Violations of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in Darfur (the 2004 Darfur Commission of Inquiry). 57. See preamble of the Statute of the ICTY and the Statute of the ICTR. 58. See paras 586 and 588 of the Report of Darfur Commission of Inquiry, http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf (accessed December 20, 2006). 59. See Security Council Resolution 1593, March 31, 2005, UN Doc S/RES/1593 (2005). 60. But see also Newman, “The Rome Statute,” op cit, arguing that the ICC is nuanced on this duty. 61. Prosecutor v Furund`ija, IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment, December 10, 1998, para 288. 62. Prosecutor v Erdemovi, IT-96-22-T, Sentencing Judgment, November 29, 1996, para 65. 63. Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana, ICTR-95-1-T, Sentence, May 21, 1999, para 2; Prosecutor v Serushago, ICTR-98-39-S, Sentence, February 5, 1999, para 20; Prosecutor v Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, Sentence, October 2, 1998, para 19; and Prosecutor v Kambanda, ICTR-97-23-S, Judgement and Sentence, September 4, 1998, para 28. 64. Velasquez Rodriguez case, op cit, para 166. 65. See para 79 of Selmouni v France 25803/94 [1999] ECHR 66 (July 28, 1999), http://worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1999/66.html (accessed December 20, 2006); see also para 38 of the Adsani v United Kingdom 35763/97 [2001] ECHR 761 (November 21, 2001), http://worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2001/761.html (accessed December 20, 2006). 66. See Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, op cit, p 387. 67. See Steven R. Ratner and Jason S. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp 182–186. 68. See Art. 8(2) of the Statute of the ICTR and Art. 9(2) of the Statute of the ICTY. 69. See Sandra Coliver, “The contribution of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” in Dinah Shelton, ed., International Crimes, Peace, and Human Rights: The Role of the International Criminal Court (New York: Transnational Publishers, 2000), pp 19–31; Jean-Marie Kamatali, “From the ICTR to ICC: learning from the ICTR experience in bringing justice to Rwandans,” New England Journal of International and Comparative Law, (2005) Vol 12, p 89. 70. See Ethel Higonnet, “Restructuring hybrid courts: local empowerment and national criminal justice reform” Yale Law School Student Scholarship Series, 2005. 71. See Bassiouni, Introduction to International Criminal Law, op cit, p 434. 72. See Arts 1 and 17 of the Rome Statute. 73. See Juan E. Mendez, “The right to truth,” in Christopher C. Joyner and Cherif Bassiouni, eds, Reining in Impunity for International Crimes and Serious Violations of Fundamental Human Rights, Proceedings of the Siracusa Conference, September 17–21, 1998 (St Agnes: Erès, 1998), pp 256–257; Yasmin Naqvi, “The right to the truth in international law: fact or fiction?,” International Review of the Red Cross, Vol 88, No 862, June 2006. 74. See UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, op cit. 75. See Douglass Cassel, “Lessons from the United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador,” in Joyner and Bassiouni, Reining in Impunity, op cit, p 227. 76. See 1949 Geneva Conventions, op cit. 77. See Rule 117 in Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, op cit, Vol I: Rules, p 422. 78. See UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/WG.22/WP.1/REV4, http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/disappear/docs/E.CN.4.2005.WG.22.WP.1.REV4.pdf. 79. See Commission on Human Rights, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, “Study on the right to the truth, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,” UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/91 of February 8, 2006, para 50. 80. Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone, Vol 1, Chapter 1, para 3, http://trcsierraleone.org/drwebsite/publish/v1c1.shtml (accessed December 22, 2006). 81. This act is at http://www.doj.govza/trc/legal/act9534.htm (accessed December 26, 2006). 82. Law No 975 of July 25, 2005, quoted in Naqvi, “The right to the truth,” op cit, p 263. 83. See Commission on Human Rights, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, op cit, para 21. 84. Decision of March 7, 2003, “Srebrenica cases,” Case Numbers CH/01/8365 et al., para 220(4). 85. Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment of January 20, 2003, Case T-249/03 and C-228 of April 3, 2002, quoted in Commission on Human Rights, op cit. 86. Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, Judgement of March 18, 2004, Case 2488-2002-HC/TC, quoted in Commission on Human Rights, op cit. 87. See Agreement of September 1, 2003 of the National Chamber for Federal Criminal and Correctional Matters, Case Suarez Mason, Ro. 450 and Case Escuela Mecanica de la Armada, Rol. 761, quoted in Commission on Human Rights, op cit. 88. See African Union, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights “Directives et Principes sur le Droit à un Procès Equitable et à l'Assistance Judiciaire en Afrique,” DOC/OS(XXX)274, para C (b,3), 5, http://www.afrimap.org/english/images/treaty/file43662d79568b0.doc (accessed January 5, 2007). 89. Amnesty International and Others v Sudan, African Commission on Human Peoples' Rights, Comm. No 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93 (1999), para 54, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/africa/comcases/48-90_50-91_52-91_89-93.html. 90. Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Inter-American Yearbook on Human Rights, 1986, p 308. 91. See Trujilo Oroza Reparations, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Series C), No 92, 2002, para 115, translated and quoted in Juan E. Mendez and Janvier Mariezcurrena, “Book review: unspeakable truths,” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol 25, 2003, pp 237–256. 92. See inter alia Kurt v Turkey, Judgment of May 25, 1998, Application No 2427/94; Tas v Turkey, Judgment of November 14, 2000, Application No 24396/94; Cyprus v Turkey, Judgment of May 10, 2001, Application No 25781/94; Aksoy v Turkey, Judgment of December 18, 1996, Application No 21987/93; and Kaya v Turkey, Judgment of March 28, 2000, Application No 22535/93; all available at http://worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/ (accessed January 10, 2007). 93. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Guatemala, 03/04/96, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/Add.63, para 25. 94. General Assembly Resolutions 3220 (XXIX), 33/173, 45/165, 47/132, 55/118, 57/105 and 57/161; Security Council Resolutions 1468 (2003), 1470 (2003) and 1606 (2005); for the Secretary-General, see ST/SGB/1999/13. 95. See e.g. Mashood A. Baderin, “Recent developments in the African regional human rights system,” Human Rights Law Review, Vol 5, 2005, pp 117–149. 96. Parada Cea y Otros v El Salvador, Case 10.480, Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1, OEA/ser.L./v./II.102, Doc6 (1999), quoted in Ronald Slye, “The legitimacy of amnesties under international law and general principles of Anglo-American law: is a legitimate amnesty possible?,” Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol 43, 2002, p 173. 97. Hein Marais, South Africa: Limits to Change—The Political Economy of Transition (New York: Zed Books, 2001), p 301. 98. See William A. Schabas, “The relationship between truth commissions and international courts: the case of Sierra Leone,” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol 25, 2003, p 1035; see also Final Report of the TRC of Sierra Leone, op cit. For East Timor see the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation Final Report, http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/846.html (accessed December 26, 2006); see also Suzanne Katzenstein, “Hybrid tribunals: searching for justice in East Timor,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol 16, 2003, p 245. 99. In the Ellacuria case, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights argued that the quality of truth that comes from a trial is to be preferred to that derived from a truth commission: in Slye, “The legitimacy of amnesties,” op cit. 100. Mendez, “The right to truth,” op cit, p 257. 101. Surely more steps are needed in defining a better collaboration between courts' search for truth and the TRC's search for truth. For details on difficulties in collaboration between these two institutions in Sierra Leone, see Schabas, “The relationship between truth commissions and international courts,” op cit. 102. See UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, op cit, at principle 31; see also in more detail General Assembly, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc A/60/509/Add.1. 103. Resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex. 104. Resolution 2106 A (XX), annex. 105. U.N.T.S., Vol 1465, No 24841. 106. U.N.T.S., Vol 1577, No 27531. 107. See Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1915). 108. U.N.T.S., Vol 1125, No 17512. 109. Official Records of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, June 15–July 17, 1998, Vol I: Final Documents, UN Doc E.02.I.5, section A. 110. U.N.T.S., Vol 1520, No 26363. 111. U.N.T.S., Vol 1144, No 17955. 112. U.N.T.S., Vol 213, No 2889. 113. For a discussion about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as customary international law, see Jack Donnelly, “The United Nations adopts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” in Frank N. Magill, ed., Great Events from History, Vol II (1992) (Passadena: Salem Press), pp 789, 792. 114. Resolution 217 A (III), http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (accessed January 12, 2007). 115. Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 40/34 of November 29, 1985, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp49.htm (accessed December 26, 2006). 116. Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 40/34 of November 29, 1985, op cit. 117. Ibid. 118. For details see Elizabeth Lira, “The reparations policy for human rights violations in Chile,” in Pablo De Greiff, ed., The Handbook of Reparations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp 55–101. 119. For details see Maria José Guembe, “Economic reparations for grave human rights violations: the Argentinean experience,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 21–54. 120. For details see Ignacio Cano and Patricia Salvao Ferreira, “The reparation program in Brazil,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 102–153. 121. For details see Alexander Segovia, “The reparations proposals of the truth commissions in El Salvador and Haiti,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 154–175. 122. Segovia, “The reparations proposals,” op cit. 123. For details see Christopher J. Colvin, “Overview of the reparations programs in South Africa,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 176–214. 124. For details see Diana Cammack, “Reparation in Malawi,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 215–256. 125. For details see Eric K. Yamamoto and Liann Ebesugawa, “Report on redress: the Japanese American internment,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 257–283; see also Samuel Issacharoff and Anna Morawiec Mansfield, “Compensation for the victims of September 11,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 285–320. 126. For details see Ariel Colonomos and Andrea Armstrong, “German reparations to the Jews after World War II: a turning point in the history of reparations,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 390–419. 127. For details see Anna Rotman, “U.S. foreign policy and human rights: note: Benin's constitutional court: an institutional model for guaranteeing human rights,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol 17, 2004, p 281. 128. See CAVR Final Report, pp 35–44, http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/846.html (accessed January 17, 2007). 129. See Final Report of the TRC of Sierra Leone, op cit, Vol 2, Chapter 4. 130. See Updated Set of Principles, op cit, principle 34; Basic Principles and Guidelines, op cit, paras 19–22; CAVR Final Report, op cit, part. 11, para 12.2; Final Report of the TRC of Sierra Leone, op cit, Vol 2, Chapter 4, para 22. 131. For details on judicial versus administrative approaches see Jaime E. Malamud-Goti and Lucas Sebastian Grosman, “Reparations and civil litigation: compensation for human rights violations in transitional democracies,” in De Greiff, The Handbook of Reparations, op cit, pp 539–559. 132. See on this issue Naomi Roht-Arriaza, “Reparations decisions and dilemmas,” Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol 27, 2004, p 157. 133. See Malamud-Goti and Grosman, “Reparations and civil litigation,” op cit, p 541. 134. Final Report TRC Sierra Leone, op cit, para 23. 135. CAVR Final Report, op cit, para 12.7. 136. Malamud-Goti and Grosman, “Reparations and civil litigation,” op cit, p 557. 137. The ICTR and ICTY limit reparations to the return of stolen property to their rightful owners without providing redress for personal injuries of a physical or mental nature (Art. 24 of the ICTY Statute and Art. 23 of the ICTR Statute). They also left the decision on compensation to national justice systems (see rule 106 of both tribunals). 138. UN Charter, preamble, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ (accessed January 12, 2007). 139. This determination enshrined in the preamble of the UN Charter may not be binding in the spirit of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but it sets out broad rules for the interpretation of this treaty and many other treaties based it: see Art. 31 (1) and (2), http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (accessed December 27, 2006). 140. Security Council Resolution 1366, August 30, 2001, UN Doc S/RES/1366 (2001), para 17, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/524/48/PDF/N0152448.pdf?OpenElement. 141. Security Council Resolution 1366, op cit, para 12. 142. See Art. 1 of the Genocide Convention, op cit. 143. Orentlicher, “Settling accounts,” op cit. 144. See Convention against Torture, op cit. 145. See text at http://www.cpt.coe.int/EN/documents/ecpt.htm. 146. See text at http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/Treaties/a-51.html. 147. See Velasquez Rodriguez case, op cit, para 166. 148. See Security Council, letter dated July 12, 2004 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, Annex: Outline of the Mandate for the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, UN Doc S/2004/567, para C, http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/prev_genocide/appointment.pdf. (accessed January 6, 2007). 149. Barbara Harff, “No lessons learned from the Holocaust? Assessing risks of genocide and political mass murder since 1955,” American Political Science Review, Vol 97, 2003, p 62. 150. Updated Set of Principles, op cit, principle 35. 151. Nino, “The duty to punish,” op cit, p 2619. 152. See Jeremy Sarkin, “The necessity and challenges of establishing a truth and reconciliation commission in Rwanda,” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol 21, 1999, pp 767–823; for Bosnia, see Bosnia and Herzegovina, “ICTJ activities: truth seeking,” http://www.ictj.org/en/where/region4/510.html.