Contenido principal del artículo

Alejandro Sánchez Frías

El primer acercamiento jurisprudencial en las dos décadas de historia de la Corte Penal Internacional al requisito del “interés de la justicia” ha generado fuertes críticas por la doctrina y la sociedad civil. Frente a la interpretación restrictiva del concepto de “interés de la justicia” defendida de manera abstracta por la doctrina mayoritaria, su traslado al mundo real por la Sala de Cuestiones Preliminares se ha materializado a través de una polémica interpretación extensiva que no ha sido rechazada de forma explícita por la Sala de Apelaciones. El presente trabajo analiza los elementos jurídicos, políticos y económicos presentes en esta interpretación expansiva para determinar las luces y sombras de su valoración a la hora de tomar una decisión de tal calado como la de qué constituye el “interés de la justicia”.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Sánchez Frías, A. (2021). El interés de la justicia en el Estatuto de Roma: un análisis a partir de las decisiones en la situación de Afganistán. Anuario Iberoamericano De Derecho Internacional Penal, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/anidip/a.10499

Akande, D. (2003). The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, over nationals of non-parties: Legal basis and limits. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 1(3), 618-650. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/1.3.618 Ambos, K. (2016). Treatise on international criminal law, Vol. III. Oxford University Press. Bantekas, I. (2010). International criminal law. Hart Publishing.

Bantekas, I. (2011). Criminal jurisdiction of states under international law. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.

Bergsmo, M., & Kruger, P (2008). Investigation and prosecution. En O. Triffterer (Ed.), Commentary on the Rome

Statute of the International Criminal Court (pp. 1065-1076). Hart Publishing.

Bosco, D. (2020). Putting the prosecutor on a clock? Responding to variance in the length of preliminary examinations. ajil Unbound, 112 (Symposium on the Rome Statute at Twenty), 158-162. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2018.53

Cárdenas Aravena, C. M. (2011). Revisión crítica del criterio «interés de la justicia» como razón para no abrir una investigación o no iniciar un enjuiciamiento ante la Corte Penal Internacional. Revista de Derecho, 1, 21-47.

Carsten, S. (2016). The icc, pre-existing jurisdictional treaty regimes, and the limits of the nemo dat quod non habet doctrine —A reply to Michael Newton. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49(2), 443-454. C

Clark, P. (2008). Law, politics and pragmatism: The icc and case selection in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. En N. Waddell & P. Clark (Eds.), Courting conflict? Justice, peace and the icc in Africa (pp. 37-45). Royal African Society.

Crawford, J. (2008). Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford University Press. Dancy, G., & Montal, F. (2017). Unintended positive complementarity: Why International Criminal Court investigations may increase domestic human rights prosecutions. American Journal of International Law, 111(3), 689-723. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2017.70

Danilenko, G. M. (2000). The statute of the International Criminal Court and third states. Michigan Journal of International Law, 21(3), 445-494. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol21/iss3/3

Dannenbaum, T. (2020). Legitimacy in war and punishment: The Security Council and the icc. En K. J. Heller et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international criminal law (pp. 129-154). Oxford University Press.

De Souza Dias, T. (2017). Interests of justice: Defining the scope of prosecutorial discretion in article 53(1)(c) and (2)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Leiden Journal of International Law, 2017, 731-751.

Dörr, O., & Schmalenbach, K. (2018). Article 34: general rule regarding third States. En Autores, Vienna Convention on the law of treaties: A commentary (pp. 613-615). Springer.

Gómez Colomer, J. L. (2002). La investigación del crimen en el proceso penal ante la Corte Penal Internacional. En J. Cardona Llorens et al. (Coords.), La Corte Penal Internacional: un estudio interdisciplinar (pp. 227-324). Tirant lo Blanch.

Gallavin, C. (2003). Article 53 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: In the interests of justice? King’s Law Journal, 4, 179-198. Kelsen, H. (1991). ¿Qué es la justicia? (Edición española a cargo de Albert Calsamiglia). Editorial Ariel.

Loyo Cabezudo, J. (2021). La llave del «interés de la justicia» en el Estatuto de Roma: su controvertido empleo en el caso de Afganistán. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional, 73(1), 165-186.

Magnoux, C. (2017). The sound of silence: Le pouvoir discrétionnaire du procureur de la Cour pénale internationale à travers l’utilisation des critères d’intérêts de la justice et de gravité lors de l’ouverture d’une enquête. Revue Québécoise de Droit International, 9-36.

Marston Danner, A. (2003). Enhancing the legitimacy and accountability of prosecutorial discretion at the International Criminal Court. American Journal of International Law, 97, 510-552.

McAuliffe de Guzman, M. (2008). Gravity and the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court. Fordham Journal of International Law, 32(5), 1400-1465.

Newton, M. A. (2016). How the International Criminal Court threatens treaty norms. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49(2), 371-442.

Ochi, M. (2016). Gravity threshold before the International Criminal Court: An overview of the court’s practice. icd Brief.

Olásolo Alonso, H. (2005). The triggering procedure of the International Criminal Court, procedural treatment of the principle of complementarity, and the role of office of the prosecutor. International Criminal Law Review, 5, 121-146.

Olásolo Alonso, H. (2012). El principio de complementariedad y las estrategias de actuación de la Corte Penal Internacional en la fase de examen preliminar: ¿Por qué la Corte Penal Internacional mantiene su examen preliminar, pero no abre una investigación, sobre la situación en Colombia? Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales, 24, 1-45.

O’Keefe, R. (2016). Quid not quantum: A comment on how the International Criminal Court threatens treaty norms. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49(2), 433-442.

Orihuela Calatayud, E. (2019). When are there substantial reasons to believe that an investigation of core crimes would not serve the interests of justice? Spanish Yearbook of International Law, 23, 9-30.

Orihuela Calatayud, E. (2020). La autorización para investigar los crímenes cometidos en Afganistán. Luces y sombras de la sentencia, de 5 de marzo de 2020, de la Sala de Apelaciones de la Corte Penal Internacional. Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales, 39, 1-19.

Poltronieri Rossetti, L. (2019). The pre-trial chamber’s Afghanistan decision: A step too far in the judicial review of prosecutorial discretion? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 17, 585-608.

Pues, A. (2017). Towards the ‘golden hour’? A critical exploration of the length of preliminary examinations. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 15, 435-453.

Rastan, R. (2014). Situation and case: defining the parameters. En C. Stahn & M. M. El Zeidy (Eds.), The International Criminal Court and complementarity: From theory to practice (pp. 421-459). Cambridge University Press.

Ryngaert, C. (2015). Jurisdiction in international law. Oxford University Press. Schabas, W. (2017). An introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press.

Seils, P. (2015). Putting complementarity in its place. En C. Stahn (Ed.), The law and practice of the International Criminal Court (pp. 305-327). Oxford University Press.

Staker, C. (2014). Jurisdiction. In D. Evans (Ed.), International law (pp. 309-333). Oxford University Press. Stegmiller, I. (2014). Interpretative gravity under the Rome Statute: Identifying common gravity criteria. En C. Stahn & M. M. El Zeidy (Eds.), The International Criminal Court and complementarity: From theory to practice (pp. 603-641). Cambridge University Press.

Turone, G. (2002). Powers and duties of the prosecutor. En A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, & J. Jones (Eds.), The Rome Statute of the icc: A commentary (pp. 1138-1180). Oxford University Press.

Vagias, M. (2014). The territorial jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press. Vierdag, E. W. (1982). The law governing treaty relations between parties to the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties and states not party to the convention. American Journal of International Law, 76(4), 779-801.

Webb, P. (2005). The icc prosecutor’s discretion not to proceed in the “interests of justice. Criminal Law Quarterly, 50, 305-348.

Wenqi, Z. (2006). On co-operation by states not party to the International Criminal Court. International Review of the Red Cross, 88(861), 87-110.

Wirth, S. (2003). Germany’s new international crimes code: Bringing a case to court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 1(1), 151-168.

Jurisprudencia CPI, Sala de Apelaciones. (30 de noviembre de 2006). Decision requesting information on the status of the preliminary examination of the situation in the Central African Republic, ICC-01/05. CPI, Pre-Trail Chamber. (25 de octubre de 2017).

Decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the authorization of an investigation into the situation in the Republic of Burundi, ICC-01/17-X.

CPI, Pre-Trial Chamber II. (12 de abril de 2019). Decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the authorisation of an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17. CPI, Sala de Apelaciones. (5 de marzo de 2020).

Judgment on the appeal against the decision on the authorisation of an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17 OA4. CPJI. (7 de septiembre de 1927). The case of the S. S. Lotus (France v. Turkey). TPIY. (5 de julio de 2001).

Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisi, partly dissenting opinion of judge Wald, IT-95-10-A. United States v. Hastings, 847 F. 2d 920,923 (1st Cir., 1998). Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Granch) 116, 136, 3 L.Ed. 287 (1812).

Otras fuentes

Akande, D., & de Souza Días, T. (2019). The icc pre-trial chamber decision on the situation in Afghanistan: A few thoughts on the interests of justice. ejil: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-icc-pre-trial-chamber-decision-on-thesituation-in-afghanistan-a-few-thoughts-on-the-interests-of-justice/

Australia’s Federal Prosecution Service. (s. f.). Guidelines for the making of decisions in the prosecution process. https://www.cdpp.gov.au/sites/default/files/Prosecution-Policy-of-the-Commonwealth_0.pdf CPI. Appeals Hearing. (5 de diciembre de 2019).

ICC-02/17-T-002. https://www. icc-cpi.int/Transcripts/CR2019_07401.PDF CPI, Oficina del Fiscal. (2007). Policy paper on the interests of justice. https://www. icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/772c95c9-f54d-4321-bf09-73422bb23528/143640/ iccotpinterestsofjustice.pdf

CPI, Oficina del Fiscal. (2015). Strategic Plan 2016 – 2018. https://www.icc-cpi.int/ iccdocs/otp/en-otp_strategic_plan_2016-2018.pdf Legal representatives of the victims, Victims’ Appeal Brief. (24 de junio de 2019). ICC-02/17 OA. CPI, Oficina del Fiscal. (7 de junio de 2019).

Request for leave to appeal the “Decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the authorisation of an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”, ICC-02/17.

Kersten, M. (2019). Whither the aspirational icc, welcome the ‘practical’ court? ejil Talk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/whither-the-aspirational-icc-welcome-the-practical-court/

Labuda, P. I. (2019). A neo-colonial court for weak states? Not quite. Making sense of the International Criminal Court’s Afghanistan decision. ejil: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-neo-colonial-court-for-weak-states-not-quitemaking-sense-of-the-international-criminal-courts-afghanistan-decision/ “United States Imposes Economic Sanctions and Visa Restrictions on International Criminal Court Officials”, American Journal of International Law, 115(1), 138-140.

Vasilev, S. (2019). Not just another ‘crisis’: Could the blocking of the Afghanistan investigation spell the end of the icc? (Part I). EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk. org/not-just-another-crisis-could-the-blocking-of-the-afghanistan investigation-spell-the-end-of-the-icc-part-ii/

Detalles del artículo