AN ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES 31 AND 33 OF THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract

The ideal of the protection of human rights and therefore the punishment of the most horrific crimes against humanity and the failure to punish these crimes in national judicial systems have been reason in the development of International Criminal Law. Human rights law is based on the idea of fair trial and protection of the accused and the victim, but the development of international criminal law focuses on the concept of prosecution mostly. This article will provide an analysis of the provision of Article 31 of the ICC Statute under the heading of the „Reasons for defences for the Criminal Liability‟ and Article 33 of the ICC under the heading of „order of superior‟ in the context of human rights. It will also analyze whether the international criminal law system strikes a balance between the obligation to punish the most horrific crimes and the respect for the fundamental rights of humanity, referring to the reasons for excluding the responsibility of accused in modern criminal law systems and the way in which the justifications is regulated at the proceedings of the international criminal courts before the ICC and ICC.

Keywords

• International Criminal Court,Article 31 and 33 of the ICC Statute,justifications,defences,human rights

Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Statüsü’nün 31. ve 33. Maddelerinin İnsan Hakları Bağlamında Analizi

Abstract

İnsan haklarının korunması ideali ve dolayısıyla insanlığa karşı işlenmiş en korkunç suçların cezalandırılması ve bu suçların ulusal yargı sistemlerinde cezalandırılmaması/cezalandırılamaması kaygısı Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunun gelişmesine vesile olmuştur. İnsan hakları hukuku, adil yargılanma ve sanığın ve mağdurun korunması fikrine dayanarak gelişmiştir, ancak uluslararası ceza hukukunun gelişiminde insan hakları bağlamında daha çok kovuşturma kavramına odaklanılmıştır. Hatta Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesinin Roma Statüsü hazırlanırken, Statü'nün sanığın sorumluluğunu dışlayan savunmalara referans içermesi gerekip gerekmediği konusunda büyük tartışmalar yaşanmıştır. Bu makalede, UCM Statüsü’nün ‘Cezai Sorumluluktan Kurtulma Gerekçeleri’başlığı altında düzenlenen 31.maddesi ve ‘Üst Makamın Emrini’ içeren 33.maddesi hükümlerinin insan hakları bağlamında analizi yapılacaktır. Bu bağlamda, modern ceza hukuku sistemlerinde kusur yeteneğini ortadan kaldıran nedenler ve hukuka uygunluk nedenlerinin düzenlenme şekline ve UCM öncesi uluslararası ceza mahkemelerinin yargılamalarına da atıf yapılarak, uluslararası ceza hukuku sisteminin en korkunç suçların cezalandırılması zorunluluğu ile insanların temel haklarına saygı gösterilmesi arasında bir denge kurup kuramadığı hususları ele alınacaktır.

Keywords

• uluslararası ceza mahkemesi,UCM Statüsü 31. ve 33. maddeleri,hukuka uygunluk nedenleri,kusuru etkileyen nedenler

References

1. BASSIONUI C.: International Criminal Law, Durham, Carolina Academic Press, 1996, s.1390. BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern, Henry Campbell black(ed), Fifth edition, St. Paul Minn, West Publishing Co., 1979. CASSESSE, A.: International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, 2003. CRYER, R., FRIMAN, H., ROBINSON, D., WILMSHURST, E.: An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge University Press, 2. Bası. 2010. DEĞĠRMENCĠ, Olgun: Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunda Amirin Emrini Ġfa Sorumluluğu, Legal Hukuk Dergisi, Cilt no.10, sayı 120, 1-27, 2012. GAETA, Paola: “The Defence of Superior Orders: The Statute of the International Criminal Court Versus Customary International Law”,European Journal International Law, Volume 10, s. 172- 191, 1999. GERMAN SUPREME COURT IN THE BRITISH ZONE: Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofes fur die Britische Zone in Strafsachen, Vol.1, 1949, s.201, Quoted in Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassesse, footnote 12, translation of judge Cassesse GEERT-JAN G.J. Knoops: Defenses in Contemporary International Criminal Law (New York: Transnational Publishers 2001). GILBERT Jérémie: Justice not revenge: The International Criminal Court and the „grounds to exclude criminal responsibility‟ – defences or negation of criminality?, The International Journal of Human Rights, 2006, 10:02, s. 143-160, DOI: 10.1080/13642980600608541.GLASER, S. Introduction to International Criminal Law, Etablissement Emile Bruylant, 1954. GÜNEYSU, G.: Uluslararası Hukukta Amirin Emri, XII Levha, 2015. KITTICHAISAREE, Kriangsak: International Criminal law, Oxford University Press, 2001.-Knut Dörmann, LRTWC, Volume X, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Law, Cambridge University press, 2003, ss.147-149. KIRSTEN M.F. Keith: „„The Mens Rea of Superior Responsibility as Developed by ICTY Jurisprudence‟‟, LJIL, Vol.14, 2001, 602- 621, s. 619, n. 7 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=o nline&aid=208011 --Schabas, William, A. United Nations Hostility to the International Criminal Court: It‟s All About the Security Council, EJIL, Vol.14, No.4, 2004. SHANE, Darcy: The Evolution of the Law of Belligerent Reprisals‟ 184 Military Law Review 175, 2003. SYNTHESE DES DEBATS: Revue Belge de Droit International, 2000/2. ÖZBEK, V.Ö. / DOĞAN, K. / BACAKSIZ, P. / TEPE. Ġ.: Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler, Seçkin, 2017. TEZCAN, D. / ERDEM, M.R. / ÖNOK, R.M.: Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku, Seçkin, 2009, 2. Baskı. TÖNER, ġen Semin: Uluslararası Hukukta Soykırım, Etnik Temizlik ve Saldırı, XII Levha, 2010. VAN VERSEVELD, A.: Mistake of law: excusing perpetrators of international crimes, UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository), University of Amsterdam, 2011. WEISS Erich and Wilhelm Mundo: before United States Military government court, Law Report of trials of War Criminals, Vol. XIV; XV. WERLE, G.: Principles of International Criminal Law, 2nd edition, The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2009. Belgeler Agreement fort he Prosecution and Punishment of Major War criminals of European Axis, and Establishing the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT),(1951)82 UNTS 279, madde 16(b),(d) ve (e). Amnesty International, 16 Fundamental Principles for a just, fair and effective international criminal court, Al-Index IOR 40/010/1998. Article 5(b) of the Nuremberg-IMT-Charter. https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/insanhaklari/mevzuat_CDRS.htm (son ziyaret tarihi 2-10-2019). British Military Court, United Kingdom v. Yamamoto Chusaburo, Law Report of of the trials of War Criminals, Vol.3, 1946, 1946 (UN War Crimes Commission 1948). https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol- 15.pdf (Son Ziyaret tarihi: 04-10-2019). Control Council Law No.10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, 20 December 1945, Official Gazzette of the Control Council of Germany, No.3, berlin, 31 January 1946, ss. 50-5 https://www.legaltools. org/doc/ffda62/pdf/ (Son Ziyaret tarihi 01/10/2019). Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 4, (1951) 78 UNTS 277. International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of -----International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, UN Doc. S/RES/827, Adopted 25 May 1993 article 2(d) and 3(b). Law Records of the trials of the War Criminals, Vol. XII. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and prepared bu the United Nations War Crimes Commission, Volume X, The I.G. Farben and Krupp Trials, London: Published for the United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty‟s Stationary Office, 1949 LRTWC, Vol.X, Law Reports of Trials of War Crimes. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. XIV, XV, London, Published fort he United Nations War Crimes Commissions by his Majesty‟s stationaery Office, 1949. LRTWC, Vol.X, Law Reports of Trials of War Crimes. https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol- 10.pdf (son ziyaret tarihi 02-10-2019). 1949 Geneva Conventions, 12 August 1949, Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International armed Conflicts, (Protocol I), 1125 U.N.T.S. 3. Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of ıts 43th Session, A/CN.4/SER.A/1991/Add.1. https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/komisyon/insanhaklari/mevzuat_CDRS.htm (son ziyaret tarihi 2-10-2019). https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Law-Reports_Vol-10.pdf (son ziyaret tarihi 02-10-2019). http://www.unicankara.org.tr/doc_pdf/h_rigths_turkce.pdf (Son ziyaret tarihi 04-10-2019). http://www.mfa.gov.tr/uluslararasi-ceza-divani-ve-turkiye.tr.mfa (Son ziyaret tarihi 04-10-2019). https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/Documents/RS-Eng.pdf (Son ziyaret tarihi 04-10-2019). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8 para. 2 (xxiii): Utilizing the presence of civilian or other protected person tor ender certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations. Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Under Control Council Law No. 10, Volume IV, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/WGGP/L.4/Add.1/Rev.1, s.4,n.8. UN Doc.A/CONF.183/C.1/WGGP/L.4/Add.3,s.2,fn.2. Davalar ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo, Judgment, 20 February 2001, para. 446. http://www.un.org/icty/celebici/appeal/judgment/index.htm (Son ziyaret tarihi 01-11-2019). http://www.worldcourts.com/imt/eng/decisions/1948.02.19_United_State s_v_List1.pdf (Son ziyaret tarihi 12-09-2019). Hirota and Others, International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Tokyo, 1948, A.D. 356,364. ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez, Judgment, 26 ġubat 2001. ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez, para.449. ICTY; Trial Chamber, prosecutor v. Erdemovic,para.19. M‟Naghten‟ davası, (1843) 10 CI.& Fin 200, 8 E.R. 718. Paul Touvier and the Crimes Against Humanity. .http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=585 7&context=faculty_scholarship& (Son ziyaret tarihi 21-09-2019). The Prosecutor v. Jean Paul Akayesu, Judgment, op. cit., para. 698-734. Trial of Valentin Feursten and Others, LRTWC, Vol. XV, s.173; Trial of Gustav Alfred Jepsen, LRTWC, Vol. XV, s. 172; Trial of Alfred Ohlendorf, LRTWC, Vol. IV. Trial of Hans Paul Helmuth Latza and two others, case no:86. United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of the Trials of the War Criminals, Hostages case, Vol. XI.