Ne bis in idem -- Protector of Defendants' Rights or Jurisdictional Pointsman?

Bernard, Diane

doi:10.1093/jicj/mqr018

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prohibition on double jeopardy is also codified in international human rights instruments. 50 Conway writes that the rule is derived from Roman law and has Greek and Biblical roots. 51 However, the non bis in idem principle as originally conceived only applies to criminal offenses and not to disciplinary or administrative measures.…”

Section: Conceiving Of Ghana's Violation As 'Continuing'mentioning

confidence: 99%

A missed opportunity on the mandatory death penalty: a commentary on Dexter Eddie Johnson v Ghana at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

Novak

2022

AHRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT: In March 2019, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights declared Dexter Eddie Johnson v Ghana inadmissible on the basis that the case had already been decided by the UN Human Rights Committee and therefore was ‘settled’ under article 56(7) of the African Charter. The UN Human Rights Committee had previously found Ghana in violation of its international human rights obligations by sentencing Johnson to a mandatory death sentence for murder, reaffirming a considerable body of comparative and international jurisprudence that the mandatory death penalty was a human rights violation. In finding the case inadmissible, the African Court construed Ghana’s violation narrowly, as encompassing only the initial 2008 death sentence. However, conceiving of Ghana’s violation more broadly, including its failure over ten years to commute Johnson’s death sentence or offer him a sentencing hearing, and its failure to implement the 2014 finding of the UN Human Rights Committee, would have been consistent with the Court’s rules and prior jurisprudence. Certainly, the combination of the delay, conditions on death row, and mental state of the petitioner would establish an additional human rights violation beyond the initial mandatory death sentence. Although the UN Human Rights Committee and the African human rights system have reciprocal rules to prevent re-examination of the same facts twice, the African Court was more restrictive in its admissibility holding in Johnson than the Committee would have been. The Court therefore missed an opportunity to contribute to the growing jurisprudence against the mandatory death penalty and has left Johnson without a remedy. TITRE ET RÉSUMÉ EN FRANCAIS: Une opportunite manquée au sujet de la peine de mort obligatoire: commentaire de l’arrêt de la Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples dans l’affaire Dexter Eddie Johnson c. Ghana RÉSUMÉ: En mars 2019, la Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples a déclaré irrecevable la requête en l’affaire Dexter Eddie Johnson c. Ghana, au motif que le cas avait déjà fait l’objet d’un règlement par le Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies et avait par conséquent été « réglé » au sens de l’article 56(7) de la Charte africaine. Le Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies avait précédemment conclu que le Ghana avait violé ses obligations internationales en matière de droits de l’homme en condamnant Johnson à une peine de mort obligatoire pour meurtre, réaffirmant ainsi une jurisprudence établie en droit comparé et international selon laquelle la peine de mort obligatoire constitue une violation des droits de l’homme. En déclarant la requête irrecevable, la Cour africaine a fait une interprétation restrictive de la violation commise par le Ghana comme n’incluant que la peine de mort initiale prononcée en 2008. Cependant, concevoir la violation du Ghana plus largement, y compris son incapacité pendant 10 ans à commuer la peine de mort prononcée contre Johnson ou à lui accorder une audience sur la détermination de sa peine, et son incapacité à mettre en œuvre les conclusions du Comité des droits de l’homme de 2014, auraient été conformes aux règles de la Cour et de sa jurisprudence antérieure. Certes, la combinaison du retard, des conditions dans le couloir de la mort et l’état mental du requérant établirait une violation supplémentaire des droits de l’homme allant au-delà de la peine de mort obligatoire initiale. Bien que le Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies et le système africain des droits de l’homme disposent de règles analogues pour empêcher le réexamen des mêmes faits à deux reprises, la Cour africaine a été plus restrictive quant à la recevabilité de l’affaire Johnson que le Comité l’aurait été. La Cour a donc raté une opportunité de contribuer à la jurisprudence croissante contre la peine de mort obligatoire et a laissé Johnson sans recours.

show abstract

Section: Conceiving Of Ghana's Violation As 'Continuing'mentioning

confidence: 99%

A missed opportunity on the mandatory death penalty: a commentary on Dexter Eddie Johnson v Ghana at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

Novak

2022

AHRY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…168 However, the ICC Statute provides some exceptions in order to uphold the structure of emerging international criminal law. 169 The travaux preparatoires of the Statute indicate that ne bis in idem protects defendants to a limited degree but it is never an absolute right. 170 In Dhaka today, as a justification, the prosecution team of the ICT could refer to the case of Rutaganda 171 where the Trial Chamber acquitted the defendant from all charges.…”

Section: Rights Of Accused Personsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh and International Law

Samad¹

2016

Crim Law Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regulations regarding the principle of ne bis in idem itself are contained in Article 1917 of the Indonesian Criminal Code. When ne bis in idem principle are applied in the Court, it will be related to competition between which Court has the authority and is not authorized in handling cases, mainly to provide legal protection for the accused (Bernard, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deed of Settlement as A Dispute Object based on HIR and Supreme Court Regulation No. 1/2016

Kusmayanti

Dharmawan

2020

JHN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction to The Problem: It is uncommon for a case that has been decided by a judge and has the legal force to be retained and then brought back to Court by one party for a lawsuit. This kind of case contradicts the principles and applicable law, such as the case that the researcher found in Case No. 22/Pdt.G/2016/PN. Sal. Purpose/Objective Study: This paper intends to discuss the legal problem of the resubmission of the deed of settlement as the object of a breach. Design/Methodology/Approach: This research is doctrinal legal research. The data are secondary data which analyzed qualitatively. Following the approach method used, the study is conducted on norms and principles contained in secondary data, from the primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials Findings: The results of the study show that, first, deed of settlement cannot be an object of default because it has been inkracht. Secondly, Salatiga court judges did not consider the principle of ne bis in idem under Article 10 (1) The Judicial Power Act. The president of judges shall be able to carry out the role or power under Article 119 of the HIR, which is to provide advice to those who wish to file a lawsuit. Paper Type: Research Article.

show abstract

Ne bis in idem -- Protector of Defendants' Rights or Jurisdictional Pointsman?

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

A missed opportunity on the mandatory death penalty: a commentary on Dexter Eddie Johnson v Ghana at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

A missed opportunity on the mandatory death penalty: a commentary on Dexter Eddie Johnson v Ghana at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh and International Law

Deed of Settlement as A Dispute Object based on HIR and Supreme Court Regulation No. 1/2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About