Time for eULeX To prioriTize war crimes - Amnesty International ...

64
Kosovo: Time for EULEX to prioritize war crimes
consequently rejected since the period of statutory limitation has expired”.
32 SRFY CC, Article 142. See, for example, District Court of Prizren, P.No.134/11, 2 August 2011, VII
(5), http://www.eulex-kosovo.eu/docs/justice/judgments/criminal-proceedings/DCPrizren/134-
11/(2011.08.02)%20JUD%20-%20Ejup%20KABASHI%20et%20al%20(DC%20PZ).ENG_redacted.pdf
33 Criminal Code of Kosovo, Article 129. In at least some respects, Article 129 falls short of international
law. For example, principles of superior responsibility with regard to civilians in Article 129 (2) are not as
strict as required by customary international law, as well as conventional international law, such as
Protocol I, which holds civilian superiors to the same standards as military commanders.
34 “At the time the crime was committed, a written or unwritten norm must have existed upon which to
base criminality under international law. The principle of legality (nullum crime sine lege) is part of
customary international law”, Gerhard Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law ,TMC, Asser Press,
p.32.
35 http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions-and-countries/Kosovo/EULEX-the-delicate-balance-of-
justice-96838
36 On the contrary Article 95 of the CCK provides that: “No statutory limitation shall apply to the
prosecution or execution of punishment of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as
of other criminal offences to which statutory limitation cannot be applied under international law.”
37 Amnesty International distinguishes enforced disappearances -- in which state agents are directly or
indirectly involved -- from abductions carried out by non-state actors, such as armed opposition groups.
38 HLC-Kosovo, “Human losses during the NATO bombing”, 23 March 21012, http://www.hlcrdc.org/?p=19413&lang=de
39 Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (entered into force: 15 June 2008), Article 33 (1). The
Principle of Legality and Proportionality in Criminal Cases.
40 See for example, Papon v. France, (No. 2) no. 54210/00. November 15, 2001; Touvier v. France, No.
29420/95, January 13, 1997; Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia, Nos. 23052/04 and 24018/04, January 17,
2006; and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany, Nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98..
41 “According to the principle of legality, everybody must know in advance whether specific conduct is
consonant with, or a violation of, penal law […]. [a]ccording to Article 15 [of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights] of which no breach of the nullum crimen principle exists when the act was
criminal "under national or international law, at the time when it was committed”.
“This provision does not necessarily entail, however, that the authorities of a State party to the ICCPR
may try and convict a person for a crime that is provided for in international law but not yet codified in
the domestic legal order: in criminal matters, international law cannot substitute itself for national
legislation; in other words, international criminalization alone is not sufficient for domestic legal orders
to punish that conduct. Nevertheless, Article 15 of the ICCPR allows at the very least that fresh national
legislation (or, where admissible, a binding case) defining a crime that was already contemplated in
Amnesty International April 2012 Index: EUR 70/004/2012