Non bis in idem

Last updated

Non bis in idem (sometimes rendered non-bis in idem or ne bis in idem) which translates literally from Latin as 'not twice in the same [thing]', is a legal doctrine to the effect that no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action. It is a legal concept originating in Roman civil law, [1] but it is essentially the equivalent of the double jeopardy doctrine found in common law jurisdictions, and similar peremptory plea (autrefois acquit/convict, 'previously acquitted/convicted') in some modern civil law countries.

Contents

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to be free from double jeopardy; however, it does not apply to prosecutions by two different sovereigns [lower-alpha 1] (unless the relevant extradition treaty or other agreement between the countries expresses a prohibition). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court employs a modified form of non bis in idem.

Rome Statute and ad hoc UN tribunals

The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) states that the non bis in idem principle has a peculiar meaning, especially in comparison to European supranational law. The ICC jurisdiction is complementary to national law, and Article 20 of the Rome Statute specifies that even if the principle remains in general terms, it cannot be taken in consideration if there is unwillingness or incapability of the existence of the supranational court's jurisdiction.

Article 10 of the ICTY Statute and Article 9 of the ICTR Statute both state that the principle can be enforced mainly to clarify that the ad hoc tribunal's sentences are "stronger" than the ones in domestic courts.

In other words, national courts cannot proceed against the responsible parties of crimes within the tribunal's jurisdiction if the international tribunal has already pronounced sentence for the same crimes. However, the ICTY and the ICTR can judge alleged criminals already sentenced by national courts if both of the following occur:

European Court of Human Rights – Zolotukhin vs Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ruling in the case Zolotukhin vs Russia has had a noticeable impact on practical law in Europe, where the double-punishment ban applies to all forms.

That decision, [2] on February 10, 2009, was about a military discipline case. The Russian soldier Sergey Zolotukhin took his girlfriend into military property without permission, acted threateningly, and used obscene insulting language toward the police officers who arrested him. Eleven years later, the conflict over and eventual rejection of the soldier's criminal prosecution after administrative punishment, has had consequences for double punishments throughout Europe.

Especially in tax-fraud cases, the ruling has changed many court cases since 2009. Defendants had sometimes been ordered to pay civil fines to their tax authority for filing incorrect tax declarations, then were later also prosecuted for the same transgressions, being sentenced by a district court for tax crimes. After the Zolotukhin ruling, such criminal convictions were vacated, with the persons being released (if still then-incarcerated) and compensated for time in prison.

European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice has ruled that ne bis in idem only applies in competition law cases when the offender, the facts, and the protected legal interests are the same. [3]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ For example, see A.P. v Italy, UN HRC CCPR/C/31/D/204/1986

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 1993–2017 UN ad hoc court

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was a body of the United Nations that was established to prosecute the war crimes that had been committed during the Yugoslav Wars and to try their perpetrators. The tribunal was an ad hoc court located in The Hague, Netherlands.

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels.

Rome Statute 1998 international treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC)

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome, Italy on 17 July 1998 and it entered into force on 1 July 2002. As of November 2019, 123 states are party to the statute. Among other things, the statute establishes the court's functions, jurisdiction and structure.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda International court established by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 955

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was an international court established in November 1994 by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 955 in order to judge people responsible for the Rwandan genocide and other serious violations of international law in Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994. The court eventually convicted 85 individuals at a cost of $1.3 billion.

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

Theodor Meron American judge and lawyer

Theodor Meron, is an American judge. He served as a judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism). He served as President of the ICTY four times and inaugural President of the Mechanism for three terms (2012–19).

International criminal law Public international law

International criminal law (ICL) is a body of public international law designed to prohibit certain categories of conduct commonly viewed as serious atrocities and to make perpetrators of such conduct criminally accountable for their perpetration. The core crimes under international law are genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

Command responsibility Doctrine of hierarchical accountability

Command responsibility, also called superior responsibility, the Yamashita standard, or the Medina standard, is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes. At its core, the doctrine stipulates that a superior, defined as a military commander or a civilian leader, can be held responsible for war crimes committed by subordinates. The command responsibility doctrine has been leveraged in various international tribunals to hold military and civilian leaders accountable for war crimes.

The Jus de non evocando is an ancient feudal right, stating that no one can be kept from the competent court. It derives from a medieval principle that subjects of the Crown were entitled to ius de non evocando, the right to enjoy the jurisdiction and protection of the Crown to which they were loyal. As such it is still present in several constitutions, such as the German constitution, the Italian constitution and the Dutch constitution.

Joint criminal enterprise Concept in international criminal law

Joint criminal enterprise (JCE) is a legal doctrine used during war crimes tribunals to allow the prosecution of members of a group for the actions of the group. This doctrine considers each member of an organized group individually responsible for crimes committed by group within the common plan or purpose. It arose through the application of the idea of common purpose and has been applied by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to prosecute political and military leaders for mass war crimes, including genocide, committed during the Yugoslav Wars 1991–1999.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Mass atrocity crimes have historically referred to the three legally defined international crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Ethnic cleansing is widely regarded as a fourth mass atrocity crime by legal scholars and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the field, despite not yet being recognized as an independent crime under international law.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 955 United Nations resolution adopted in 1994

United Nations Security Council resolution 955, adopted on 8 November 1994, after recalling all resolutions on Rwanda, the Council noted that serious violations of international humanitarian law had taken place in the country and, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966 United Nations resolution adopted in 2010

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966, adopted on December 22, 2010, after recalling resolutions 827 (1993) and 955 (1994), the Council established a residual mechanism to conclude the remaining tasks of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and former Yugoslavia (ICTY). It was the final Security Council resolution adopted in 2010.

International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals International criminal court

The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, also referred to as the IRMCT or the Mechanism, is an international court established by the United Nations Security Council in 2010 to perform the remaining functions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) following the completion of those tribunals' respective mandates.

Prosecution of gender-targeted crimes is the legal proceedings to prosecute crimes such as rape and domestic violence. The earliest documented prosecution of gender-based/targeted crimes is from 1474 when Sir Peter von Hagenbach was convicted for rapes committed by his troops. However, the trial was only successful in indicting Sir von Hagenbach with the charge of rape because the war in which the rapes occurred was "undeclared" and thus the rapes were considered illegal only because of this. Gender-targeted crimes continued to be prosecuted, but it was not until after World War II when an international criminal tribunal – the International Military Tribunal for the Far East – were officers charged for being responsible of the gender-targeted crimes and other crimes against humanity. Despite the various rape charges, the Charter of the Tokyo Tribunal did not make references to rape, and rape was considered as subordinate to other war crimes. This is also the situation for other tribunals that followed, but with the establishments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), there was more attention to the prosecution of gender-targeted crimes with each of the statutes explicitly referring to rape and other forms of gender-targeted violence.

Flavia Lattanzi Italian lawyer

Flavia Lattanzi is an Italian lawyer specialized in international law who is ad litem judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) since 2007 and professor at the Roma Tre University. Between 2003 and 2007, she served as ad litem judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Gabrielle Louise McIntyre Australian lawyer

Gabrielle Louise McIntyre (Australian) is an international legal practitioner, jurist, and the Chairperson of the Seychelles' Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission.

Segun Jegede is an international lawyer from Nigeria who has practiced law for over three decades at domestic and international level. A prolific writer and author, Jegede's career highlights comprise his extensive work of over 13 years at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (UNICTR), and advocacy work in international criminal law through the Legal Watch and Human Rights Initiative, a registered non-profit organization he co-founded. His work at the UNICTR mainly revolved around the investigation and prosecution of some of the known masterminds of the egregious crimes committed during the Rwandan genocide. His perspectives of the historical events which led to the Rwandan genocide and the ground breaking case law generated by the UNICTR established to prosecute those who bear the greatest responsibility for the genocide are documented in his book, “The Rwandan Genocide: Historical Background and Jurisprudence”. In the book, Jegede provides a riveting account of the pre-genocide history of Rwanda, including the often overlooked elements that make the Rwandan genocide one of the worst human tragedies of our time. Through the cases, in an engaging and candid style, the Author reveals several ground breaking decisions of the UNICTR such as the pronouncement of rape as genocide and the conviction of a woman for rape as a crime against humanity. Jegede serves as a consultant for the International Labour Organization (ILO) on human trafficking issues and the National Human Rights Commission.

References

  1. ↑ Buckland, W.W. (1963). A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (3 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. pp.  695–6.
  2. ↑ "HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights". hudoc.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 2020-02-27.
  3. ↑ ECJ14 February 2012, nr. C-17/10, Toshiba.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.