Unshackling the paper tiger - the sentencing practices of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

Abstract

No Abstract

Thoughts, analysis perspectives and critics of function of punishment in international criminal law

“…the topos of the settings that shun a paradigm of justice based on reciprocity and divided into two different profiles. The first seems to be that on a psychological level the victims of serious crimes expect effective revenge in the sense that only retaliation appears as a means of harm and an adequate measure to restore the violated justice (Danner, 2001;Beresford, 2001;Hole, 2005;Harmon, Gaynor, 2007;Hale, 2007;Mujuzi, 2010;Margetts, Kappos, 2012;Nowak, 2013;Zakerian, Alikhani, 2013;Hola, 2014;Doherty, Steinberg, 2016;Fernàndez-Pacheco Estrada, 2017;Jarvis, 2017;Aliňàn, Ollè Sesè, 2018) 25 . From this point of view, a rational penal intervention is not oriented towards satisfying desires, feelings or emotional drives but assumes the real interests of the victims and certainly does not give the exclusive and legitimate answer 25 See ex multis: ICTY, Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Trial Judgment, IT-95-14/1-T, 25 June 1999, par.…”

Political dynamics in Kenya’s post-electoral violence: Justice without peace or political compromise?

“…52 Because retributive punishments are often perceived as a form of vengeance, imposing such punishments will not engender the culture of human rights and good conscience envisaged by the wider international community. 53 In the interests of peace and in response to the above contestations, the law places limits upon the operations of the ICC by providing for the deferral of investigations or prosecutions under Article 16 of the Rome Statute under circumstances where the law conflicts with politics; however, this provision has not been given due consideration. 54 The possibility of invoking Article 16 in order to defer an ICC investigation or prosecution has been taken up on a number of occasions.…”