You are on page 1of 43


Buendia, Codei
Celeste, Kazel
Nebrida, Jasha
Perfecto, Joey

Table of Contents

Concepts of the International Criminal Law2

a. Sources of International Criminal Law...4
b. General Principles of Law..5
c. Definition of International Crimes....6


History of the International Criminal Law..10

a. Post-World War II...11
i. Tokyo Tribunal...11
ii. Nuremberg Tribunal .....11
b. Post- Cold War12
i. International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.........................12
ii. International Criminal Tribunal for the Rwanda14


International Criminal Court..16

a. Jurisdiction of the Court..18
b. General Principles of Criminal Law..20
c. Structure of the Court..22


International Cooperation on Transnational Crimes..22

a. UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crimes.23


International Cooperation for the Suppression of Municipal Crime.26

a. Extradition26
b. Interpol.36





ICL is a body of international rules designed both to proscribe certain categories of
conduct (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, aggression, terrorism) and to
make those persons who engage in such conduct criminally liable. They consequently either
authorize states, or impose upon them the obligation, to prosecute and punish such criminal
conducts. ICL also regulates international proceedings before international courts and tribunals,
for prosecuting and trying persons accused of such crimes.
- Branch of public international law
- While international law typically concerns inter-state relations, international criminal
law concerns individuals. In particular, international criminal law places responsibility on
individual personsnot states or organizationsand proscribes and punishes acts that
are defined as crimes by international law.
- Rules making up this body of law emanate from sources of international law
Unique features of ICL:

Relatively new branch of international law

- List of international crimes (of the acts for whose accomplishment international law
makes the authors criminally responsible) has come into being by gradual

a. Late 19 century only war crimes were punishable

b. WWII new categories
i. 1945 and 1946 Statues of 1. International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
(IMT) 2. International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) were adopted
and laying down new classes of international criminality.
ii. 45: crimes against humanity and crimes against peace (wars of aggression)
iii. 48: genocide (subcategory of crimes against humanity and became
autonomous class)
iv. 80: torture (discrete crime)

Very rudimentary branch of law

The gradual broadening has been a complex process. When a new class of crime
has emerged, its constituent elements (the objective and subjective conditions, or the
actus reus - often referred to as the prohibited conduct, but more accurately
described as the external elements of the offence, and mens rea - often referred to
as the mental element, but more accurately described as the fault element) have not
been immediately clear nor has any scale of penalties been laid down in international
o Three main features of the formation of ICL stand out to explain this process:

Treaties or customary rules confined themselves to prohibiting certain

acts (example: killing prisoners of war or bombing civilians) the prohibitions
were addressed to the states not directly to the individuals. Gradually, by
bringing to trial before their courts enemy servicemen that breached
international rules of warfare, states made individuals directly and personally


accountable: gradually, state responsibility was either accompanied or

replaced by individual criminal liability. When this occurred, the inference
became warranted that international customary or treaty rules addressed
themselves not only to states but also to individuals, by criminalizing their
deviant behavior in time of war, which was insufficient and inadequate and
international rules did not provide for either the objective and subjective
requirements of the crimes; in other words, they did not lay down the
conditions for its criminal repression and punishment.
It follows that international law left to national courts the task of
prosecuting and punishing the alleged perpetrators. As a consequence,
municipal courts of each state applied their procedural rules (legal provisions
on jurisdiction and on the conduct of criminal proceedings) and rules on the
general part of substantive criminal law; that is, on the definition and
character of the objective and subjective elements of crimes, on defences,
When international criminal courts were set up (first in 19457, then in
19934 and more recently in 1998 and 20027), the crimes were not
enumerated as in a criminal code, but simply as a specification of the
jurisdictional authority of the relevant court. The value and scope of those
enumerations was therefore only germane to the courts jurisdiction and did
not purport to have a general reach.


Simultaneously derives its origin from and continuously draws upon both
international humanitarian law and human rights law, as well as national criminal law.
- International humanitarian law (IHL) embraces principles and rules designed to
regulate warfare both by restraining states in the conduct of armed hostilities and by
protecting those persons who do not take part, or no longer take part (having fallen
into the hands of the enemy), in combat
- As ICL, at its origin, was chiefly concerned with offences committed during armed
hostilities in time of war (war crimes), it was only natural for it to build heavily upon
international humanitarian rules: violations of these rules, which normally only
generated state responsibility, gradually came to be considered as breaches of law
also entailing individual criminal liability.
- In addition, most customary rules of ICL have primarily evolved from municipal case
law relating to international crimes (chiefly war crimes) this explains why ICL to a
great extent results from the gradual transposition on to the international level of
rules and legal constructs proper to national criminal law or to national trial
proceedings. However, national legal orders do not contain a uniform regulation of
criminal law.
- It follows that ICL is an essentially hybrid branch of law: it is public international law
impregnated with notions, principles, and legal constructs derived from national
criminal law, IHL as well as human rights law.


ICL is rapidly changing

- This is because unfortunately, in the world community there is a staggering
increase in atrocities, whether or not linked to armed conflict.


Like most national legal systems, international rules criminalize not only conduct
causing harm (for example, murder, rape, torture, shelling of innocent civilians) but
also conduct creating an unacceptable risk of harm (for example, conspiracy to
commit genocide, not followed by genocidal acts)


Follows the same sources used in Public International Law:
1) treaty law;
2) customary international law (custom, customary law);
3) general principles of law;
4) judicial decisions (subsidiary source); and
5) learned writings (subsidiary source).

- The five sources of ICL roughly correlate with the classic expression of the sources of
international law contained in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting States;
b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d) [] judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the
various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

ICL has many treaty sources. These range from the Genocide Convention and the grave
breaches provisions of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions to relevant human rights treaties and
treaties that are not as widely ratified as the Geneva Conventions, including the:

Convention on Human Rights);

ility and Development in the Great Lakes Region (2006) and its
Protocol on the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity and all forms of Discrimination (Great Lakes Pact and Protocol); and
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Depending on the jurisdiction, in-force treaties that have been ratified (or acceded to) by the
relevant state can be a direct source of applicable law. In jurisdictions where treaties cannot be
a direct source of law, they often can serve as aids to interpretation of other applicable law.
At the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) and ICTR (International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda), treaty law is less important than custom as a direct source
(although some of the crimes in their Statutes are copied verbatim from treaties, for example,
the Genocide Convention).
The Statute of the ICTR inherently adopts the position that treaties can be used as a source for
international criminal law, since it criminalised violations of the Additional Protocol II to the
Geneva Conventions, the whole of which was not considered to reflect customary international
law at the time.
The ICTY has laid down clear rules for when treaties can be a direct source of international


criminal law (at least at that court), holding that treaties can be applied that:
offence; and
not in conflict with or derogating from peremptory norms of international law.
However, the ICTY Appeals Chamber was careful to note that although treaties can be applied
as a direct source of ICL, in practice the International Tribunal always ascertains that the
relevant provision is also declaratory of custom. This ruling is specific to the ICTY, and will not
necessarily apply in other international criminal courts (e.g., it does not apply at the ICC) or in
national jurisdictions.
Much of the content of substantive ICL exists in customary law, whether or not the same rules
simultaneously exist in treaty law.
Custom can originate in treaties, and treaties can constitute evidence of custom. Treaties can
also be an aid to interpreting custom. The same rule can exist simultaneously in treaty law and
custom; the definition of genocide and the grave breaches provisions of the Geneva
Conventions are examples. Treaties sometimes codify customary law existing at the time. The
Rome Statute of the ICC does so to a certain degree, but some of its provisions are more
restrictive than custom, while others are less restrictive than custom. Likewise, some elements
of the definition of crimes in the ICTY and ICTR Statutes go beyond what was customary law at
the time.
Example: The ICTY Tadid case shows us how the ICTY Appeals Chamber surveyed a broad
range of sources to determine that Article 3 of the ICTY Statute, which provides the ICTY with
jurisdiction over the laws and customs of war, applied to both internal and international conflicts
under customary international law.
They used: a report of the Secretary-General of the UN, statements from UN Security
Council meetings, the object and purpose of Article 3 and of the creation of the ICTY, a
historical review of cases before the ICJ, a historical review of previous conflicts, public
statements of politicians, instructions from generals to soldiers found in an army
manifestos/instructions and publications from rebel groups.
* Note that The ICTY and ICTR Statutes are not treaties, but are resolutions of the UN Security
Council adopted under the enforcement provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However,
the binding power of the resolutions stems from Article 25 of the UN Charter, a treaty


Where no rule in custom or treaty law could be found, the ICTY has on occasionand usually
with some circumspectionconsidered general principles of law in search of an applicable ICL
rule. Where a principle is found to have been accepted generally as a fundamental rule of
justice by most nations in their municipal law, its declaration as a rule of international law would
seem to be fully justified.
For example: in a joint separate opinion to the appeals judgment of the ICTYs Erdemovid case
two judges surveyed the statutory laws and jurisprudence of twenty-seven nations before


determining there was no consistent concrete rule which answers the question of whether or
not duress is a defense to the killing of innocent persons.
The ICTY and ICTR have also referred to judicial decisions of national courts and other
international courts, including the ICJ, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
(Nuremberg tribunal), other post-World War II courts, the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR). They have usually done so when looking for evidence of custom. They have similarly
considered the publications of international authorities, including scholarly writings and reports
of relevant bodies such as the International Law Commission and International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC).


An international crime is a crime whose existence and definition is anticipated by international
law (e.g.: a treaty). All ICL crimes that have been created by treaty share the characteristic that
they must be criminalized under domestic law.
Are as follows: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression.
Has been described as the crime of crimes by the ICTR.
Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the ICC states that: "genocide" means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;










Most importantly and distinctively (in relation to crimes against humanity for example), these
acts must have been committed with a particular intention (sometimes known as the special
mens rea or dolus specialis), that of destroying in whole or in part the target group as such.
The notion of crimes against humanity was originally created for the purposes of prosecuting the
main Nazi defendants at Nuremberg. The definition of crimes against humanity is broader than


that of genocide. There is no requirement of special intent, only the general intent of
committing the various underlying acts. However, those acts must have been committed as part
and with knowledge of a generalized and systematic attack. Under the Roman Statute of the
ICC Article 7 (1):
For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when
committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,
with knowledge of the attack:







Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;


Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds
that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection
with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

Enforced disappearance of persons;


The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or
serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
The abandonment of requirements that crimes against humanity be committed during war and
comport a discriminatory element can be seen as part of an effort to distinguish them more
clearly from, respectively, war crimes and genocide The criminological element of crimes
against humanity is thus increasingly a unique attempt to protect humanity, understood as both
the collectivity of human beings and what makes human being specifically human (humanness).
Aggression and war crimes share the fact that they both relate to the regulation of the use of
military armed violence, although they do so from two very different angles.


It is a criminal violation of what is known as the jus ad bellum (legality of resort to force),
whereas war crimes are criminal violations of the jus in bello.
It was seen as a crime against peace and described as the mother of all crimes at
Nuremberg. The prohibition of war by the Briand-Kellog Pact of 1928, was seen as having
solidified enough to have become a criminal prohibition under international law and all at
Nuremberg were accused of having conspired to disrupt international peace.
Definition of aggression?
The Cold War made it very difficult to come to an agreement as to the definition of Aggression
(although a resolution was adopted by the General Assembly). An aggression can perhaps best
be defined in negative terms as a military action that is neither in self-defense (as authorized by
article 51 of the Charter) nor authorized by a Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of
the Charter.
Post-Second World War: that only individuals in the highest spheres of the state (those involved
in the decision to launch a war) can be prosecuted for aggression.
The main difficulty is that there is no perfect consensus on the main parameters of aggression.
For example some would not label the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1998
by NATO as aggression even though it was a first use of force not authorized by the Security
Council, and prefer to refer to it as an instance of humanitarian intervention.
The oldest in the history of international criminal law, having been prosecuted domestically on
the basis of international conventions since the First World War.
What constitutes a war crime is defined by the various rules of international humanitarian law
relating to the use of certain means and methods of combat or certain protected persons.
International or non-international?
The distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts has been eroded
significantly since. The Tadic decision of the ICTY had at least recognized that violations of the
law or customs of war can lead to criminal responsibility in a non-international armed conflict.
The ICTR Statute does not particularly specify in its war crimes provisions whether these need
to have been committed internationally. The ICC Statute has since made the most concerted
effort to align the two. With their definition in Article 8, 1 & 2:
The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed
as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the
following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant
Geneva Convention:
(i) Willful killing;



Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;


Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military

necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the
forces of a hostile Power;
(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights
of fair and regular trial;

Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;


Taking of hostages.

Perhaps one of the most significant substantive developments in ICL since the 1990s is an
increasing recognition of the role of sexual crimes in genocide, crimes against humanity or war
crimes. Statute of ICC Article 8 Section 2 e (vi) states:
Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in
article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also
constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;
Attention to the particular experience of women in contexts of violence, has led to innovative
prosecutorial strategies that aim to transcend some of ICLs traditional gender-blindness.
As a crime against humanity, sexual offences now include, as stated in the Statute of the ICC in
Article 7 (g):
Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or
any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Finally, sexual violence has increasingly been recognized as a tool of genocide (because of the
way it victimizes a significant part of the group, but also to the extent that it leads to unwanted
ICL, which relies on punishment, is uniquely vulnerable to the accusation that it is not being
enforced. It has taken the international community quite a long time to equip itself with effective
enforcement mechanisms, and it has often done so in a way that would minimize
encroachments on sovereignty, but great strides have been accomplished in this field.
What makes these tribunals international is first that they are created by an international law
instrument. ICTs have been created through a variety of means: through agreement


(Nuremberg), occupation order (Tokyo), Security Council Resolution (ICTY and ICTR) and
international treaty (ICC).
Because of resistance to centralized criminal jurisdiction, ICTs were initially created ad hoc
(i.e.: for the purposes of judging a particular caseload). The Nuremberg Tribunal (1945-1946)
was the first such ad hoc tribunal, followed by the Tokyo tribunal (1946-1948), and the Former
Yugoslavia (The Hague) and Rwanda (Arusha) tribunals in the 1990s. A common characteristic
of all these tribunals is that their jurisdiction is limited territorially (ICTY: Former Yugoslavia;
ICTR: Rwanda), temporally (ICTR: duration of the genocide; ICTY: since 1991) or personally
(ICTR: Rwandans in Rwandas neighboring states).


The international criminal proceedings following World War II are credited with launching
the modern regime of International Criminal Law (ICL). ICL draws on four main strands of
international law history:

1. 19 century prohibitions against piracy;

2. Subsequent regulations of slavery and the slave trade;
3. The once theological and later secular theory of just war; and
4. International humanitarian law (IHL) or the law of war

On this foundation, the international community gradually built the norms, rules,
instruments, and institutions that now make up the modern ICL machinery.
Several features of the evolution are worth pointing out at the outset: First, with the
exception of post-World War II period (international tribunals were created); Second, until very
recently, the design of much of the system was ad hoc and reactive to world events rather than
result of any sort of coherent forward-looking process; Third, the history of the ICL is marked by
greater incursions into arenas that were historically exclusive province of sovereign states.
Meaning ICL norms increasingly govern the treatment a state can legally accord its citizens and
others under its jurisdiction.

A focus on post-World War II (creation of Tribunals)

This period heralded the development of two international tribunals for adjudicating international
1. The International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals (the IMT or
Nuremberg); and
2. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (the IMTFE or Tokyo Tribunal)
Establishment of these tribunals were to prosecute, respectively, high-level German and
Japanese military and civilian authorities whose crimes had no particular geographic

10 | P a g e

Post-World War II
On January 19, 1946, MacArthur announced the establishment of the tribunal, and a few weeks
later selected its eleven judges from names submitted to him by the governments sitting on the
Allied Far Eastern Commission. He also named Keenan the chief prosecutor and Australian Sir
William Webb the tribunal's president. Twenty-eight high-ranking political and military leaders
were indicted on 55 counts of "crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimes
against humanity." The Tokyo trials began on May 3, 1946, and lasted two and a half years.
And resulted in the executions of Generals Yamashita and Homma, the Tokyo trials have been
criticized as another example of "victors' justice.
The Tokyo tribunal, by contrast to Nuremberg, was established by a special proclamation
(charter) issued by Supreme Allied Commander of the Far East, Douglas MacArthur although
with the acquiescence of the other Allied Powers.
As they had done in Germany, the Allies set up three broad categories. Which could be leveled
at Japanese of any rank, covered "conventional war crimes" and "crimes against humanity,"
Same as Nuremberg Charter
POST COLD-WAR: Creation of ICTR and ICTY
In the late 80s a consortium of Latin American and Caribbean states reinvigorated the project of
international criminal justice, primarily because they sought an international mechanism to fight
the transnational illicit drug trade. In the meantime, genocide has returned in Europe in the form
of deportations, concentration, camps, ethnic cleansing, and mass killings of Bosnian Muslim
civilians during the war on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
In the midst of war, the Security Council addressed the conflict in seriatim resolutions. In
Resolution 808, adopted February 22, 1993, the Security Council unanimously decided that an
international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious
violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
since 1991.

Towards the end of World War II, as the Allied Powers began to realize that victory was
imminent, there was disagreement on the question of what to do with the defeated Nazi leaders.
While allied leaders such as Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill wanted summary executions without trials for high-ranking Nazi military officials, the
U.S. was strongly committed to the idea of an international war crimes trial.

11 | P a g e

In 1945 the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became known to the world through an
international military tribunalnow commonly called the Nuremberg trialswhen dozens of
Nazi officials were tried for their crimes. The first Nuremberg trial began on November 20, 1945.
The Nuremberg Tribunal was established by agreement (the London Agreement of August
8, 1945) among the four Allied Powers (he United States, France, the former Soviet Union and
the United Kingdom)
Each of the four nations prosecuting at Nuremberg had a judge and its own prosecutorial
team. The United States presented Count 1 (Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War), the British
presented Count 2 (Crimes against Peace), and the French and Soviets jointly presented
Counts 3 and 4 (War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity respectively). Each defendant
chose a lawyer to represent him during the course of the trials.
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of
international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts
mentioned under (i). (Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under
international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.)
. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to,
murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian
population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of
persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton
destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
. Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other
inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or
religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in
execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Post-Cold War
Sequentially, from above, the Secretary General was to prepare specific proposals for such a
tribunal. In Boutros-Ghalis subsequent report he presented a tribunal blueprint and appended a
draft statute setting forth existing international humanitarian and criminal law. Invoking the
Chapter VII powers, the Security Council unanimously adopted the draft statute in Resolution
827 on May 25, 1993. Thus creating the ICTY

12 | P a g e

Article 2: Jurisdiction
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to try persons for grave breaches of the Geneva
Convention of August 12, 1949 in the International Armed Conflict.
Article 4: Genocide
Is derived directly from the Genocide Convention of 1948 and requires the unique
mental element of specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group, as such.
Article 5: Crimes against Humanity
The Tribunal requires that perpetrators of crimes against humanity committed one or
more of the offenses enumerated in the articles provisions with the knowledge that their
acts formed part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. The
Statute grants jurisdiction over only those crimes against humanity committed in armed
conflict, whether international or internal, signaling a departure from customary
international law. (The existence of an armed conflict is a prerequisite to triggering the
Tribunal's jurisdiction.)
Territorial and Temporal Jurisdiction
Grants jurisdiction over natural persons allegedly responsible for crimes committed after
January 1, 1991 in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. While the ICTY and national
courts have concurrent jurisdiction over these crimes, the ICTY has primacy and may
thus formally request national courts to defer to its competence. Furthermore, article 29
places a binding obligation on States to cooperate with the ICTY in its investigations and
Article 7: Individual Criminal Responsibility
If a person planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in
the planning, preparation or execution of a crime, irrespective of the official position of the
accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government
official. The fact that the crime was committed by a subordinate does not relieve his superior of
criminal responsibility if the superior:
(i) had effective control over the subordinate;
(ii) knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was either about to commit the
crime or had already done so; and
(iii) failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the crime or to
punish the subordinate perpetrator after the event.
Among the Tribunals elaborations of the modes of liability enshrined in article 7 is also
the joint criminal enterprise theory of individual criminal responsibility, according to which
persons are individually responsible for the commission of a crime as part of a plurality
of co-perpetrators who act pursuant to a common purpose involving the commission of a
crime in the Statute
The judges constitute one of the Tribunal's three main organs the Chambers. The other two
organs are the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry.
The Chambers are organized into three Trial Chambers and an Appeals Chamber. They are
assisted in their work by the Chambers Legal Support teams. They consist of numerous legal

13 | P a g e

staff, employed by the Registry, who assists the judges in conducting research, helping them in
preparing and managing cases, as well as in participating in the draft of legal documents.
The job of the Prosecutor is twofold: to investigate crimes and to present cases at trial and later,
if necessary, on appeal. The Prosecutor is independent and does not seek or receive
instructions from external agencies such as any government or international organization, or
from either of the Tribunals other two organs.
The unique character of an international criminal judicial institution puts the Registry at the
center of a complex set of responsibilities in running the Tribunal. In addition to the
administration of the courtrooms, the Registry assumes duties that are often afforded to
ministries in national systems. Finally, the Registry fulfills the tasks of the administrative body of
a UN organ.


A year after, Rwanda became engulfed in a genocide of colossal proportions. 800,000
Tutsi and Hutu individuals perished within the span of a mere four months a rate of killing that
far exceeded that in the Nazi Holocaust. The Security Council could not readily ignore almost a
million dead in Rwanda, the Security Council through Resolution 955 thus established the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
As stated in Article 2 of the ICTR Statute, the ICTR shall have the power to prosecute
persons committing genocide with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group such as;
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) Attempt to commit genocide
(e) Complicity in Genocide
Crimes against Humanity
In Article 3 of the ICTR Statute, it states that the ICTR shall have the power to prosecute
persons responsible for the following crimes:
(a) Murder
(b) Extermination
(c) Enslavement
(d) Deportation

14 | P a g e

(e) Imprisonment
(f) Torture
(g) Rape
(h) Persecution on political, racial and ethnical grounds
(i) other inhumane acts
Article 7: Territorial and Temporal Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction shall extend to the territory of Rwanda (land surface and airspace) and
as well as the neighboring states
Article 3: Concurrent Jurisdiction
The ICTR and national courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute persons for
serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda,
Rwandan citizens or within the neighboring States. The ICTR shall have the primacy over the
national courts of all States. The ICTR shall have primacy over the national courts of all States.
At any stage of the procedure, the ICTR may formally request national courts to defer to its
competence in accordance with the present Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence
of the ICTR.
Article 9: Non Bis in Idem
1. No person shall be tried before a national court for acts constituting serious violations
of international humanitarian law under the present Statute, for which he or she has
already been tried by the International Tribunal for Rwanda.
2. A person who has been tried by a national court for acts constituting serious violations
of international humanitarian law may be subsequently tried by the International Tribunal
for Rwanda only if:
(a) The act for which he or she was tried was characterized as an ordinary crime;
(b) The national court proceedings were not impartial or independent, were
designed to shield the accused from international criminal responsibility, or the
case was not diligently prosecuted.
3. In considering the penalty to be imposed on a person convicted of a crime under the
present Statute, the International Tribunal for Rwanda shall take into account the extent
to which any penalty imposed by a national court on the same person for the same act
has already been served.
Relatively same as ICTY
The Chambers shall consist of 16 appointed permanent independent judges. The Trial Chamber
will have sections of three with three judges each. While, on the other hand, seven judges will
be in the Appeals Chamber. The judge must be a person of high moral character, impartiality

15 | P a g e

and integrity.
The Prosecutor shall be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of persons
responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of
Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for such violations committed in the territory of
neighboring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994. The Prosecutor shall act
independently as a separate organ of the International Tribunal for Rwanda.
The Registry shall be responsible for the administration and servicing of the International
Tribunal for Rwanda. The Registry shall consist of a Registrar and such other staff as may be


The International Criminal Court (ICC) is governed by the Rome
Statute and entered into force on July 1, 2002 after 60 countries have
ratified it. It is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court
established to help impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious
crimes of concern to the international community.
Facts about the ICC:
It is an independent organization and is not a part of the United
Nations system.
Seats in The Hague, in the Netherlands (host state), but may
take its proceedings anywhere else.
Similar to the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials since it addressed war crimes, crimes
against peace and crimes against humanity which were committed during WWII.
There were tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and
Rwanda but since it was only for crimes committed only within a specific time-frame
and a specific conflict, there was a need to have a permanent criminal court, thus the
On July 17, 1998 when 120 states adopted the Rome Statute, which then became
the basis for the ICC.
Currently has 121 state parties. Included are 11 African States, 18 Asia-Pacific
States, 18 Eastern Europe States, 27 Latin American and Caribbean States and 25
Western European and other States.
No reservations may be made to the Roman Statute

16 | P a g e

17 | P a g e


The ICC or the Court is a permanent institution and has the power to exercise its jurisdiction
over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern. (Article 1). Article 5 of the
Rome Statute says that, the Court has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes of concern to
the international community as a whole and they are: (a) Crime of Genocide (b) Crimes against
Humanity (c) War Crimes (d) Crime of Aggression. However, the Court may only have
jurisdiction over the Crimes against Aggression after January 1, 2017. The Court is a court of
last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system
unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were
undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility.
1. Genocide
Article 6 of the Rome Statute explains that genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or rebellious
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


2. Crimes against Humanity

Article 7 of the Rome Statute states that the crime against humanity means any of the
following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
an civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder
(b) Extermination
(c) Enslavement
(d) Deportation of forcible transfer of population
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental
rules of international law
(f) Torture
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization,
or any other form of sexual violence of comparative gravity
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national,
ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are
universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any
act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or
serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

18 | P a g e

3. War Crimes
Article 8 of the Rome Statute states that the necessary acts that can be classified as a war
crime was adapted from the Geneva Conventions (August 12, 1949)
(a) Willful killing
(b) Torture or inhuman treatment of a protected person, including biological experiments
(c) Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to the body or health
(d) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, or not justified by military
necessity and carried out unlawfully or unwantonly
(e) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a
hostile power
(f) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war other protected person of the rights of fair and
regular trial
(g) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement
(h) Taking of hostages


Republic of the Congo
o The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
o The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui
o The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda
o The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana
Central African Republic
o The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo
o The Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic
o The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun ("Ahmad Harun") and Ali
Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman ("Ali Kushayb")
o The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir
o The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda
o The Prosecutor v. Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed
Jerbo Jamus
o The Prosecutor v. Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein
o The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang
o The Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta
o The Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi
Republic of Cte d'Ivoire
o The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo

19 | P a g e


Article 22: Nullum Crimen Sine Lege
(1) A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question
constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
(2) The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In
case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated,
prosecuted or convicted.
(3) This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international
law independently of this Statute.

Article 23: Nulla Poena Sine Lege

A person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute.

Article 24: Non-retroactivity Ratione Personae

No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into
force of the Statute.

Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility

(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute
(2) A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually
responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.
(3) In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for
punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through
another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or
otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the
means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a
crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be
intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of
the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;
(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit
(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by
means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances
independent of the person's intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to
commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for
punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person
completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.
(4) No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the
responsibility of States under international law.

Article 26: Exclusion of Jurisdiction over Persons under Eighteen

The Court shall have no jurisdiction over any person who was under the age of 18 at the time of
he alleged commission of a crime.

20 | P a g e

Article 30: Mental Element

(1) Less otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for
a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent
and knowledge.
(2) For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where:
(a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct;
(b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is
aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.
(3) For the purposes of this article, "knowledge" means awareness that a circumstance exists or a
consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. "Know" and "knowingly" shall be
construed accordingly.

Article 33: Superior orders and prescription of law

(1) The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person
pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian shall not relieve
that person of criminal responsibility unless:
(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the
superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
(2) For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are
manifestly unlawful.


The Court is composed of four organs:
(a) The Presidency
(b) Appeals Division, Trial Division and Pre-Trial Division
(c) The Office of the Prosecutor
(d) The Registry
The Presidency
There will be a President, First and Second Vide-President, they are voted through an
absolute majority of the judges and will serve a three year term. They are responsible for the
proper administration of the Court and other functions conferred upon it in the accordance with
the Rome Statute
The Chambers and Judges
There will be 18 Judges that are elected via secret ballot. These judges must be
competent in Criminal Law and International Law (International Humanitarian Law and Law of
Human Rights). There must not be two nationals of the same State.

The Appeals Chamber

o President and Four Judges
The Trial Chamber and the Pre-Trial Chamber
o not less than six judges

The judges of the Court are: Sang-Hyun Song (Republic of Korea), Sanji Mmasenono
Monageng (Botswana), Cuno Tarfusser (Italy), Hans-Peter Kaul (Germany), Akua Kuenyehia

21 | P a g e

(Ghana), Erkki Kourula (Finland), Anita Uacka (Latvia), Ekaterina Trendafilova (Bulgaria),
Joyce Aluoch (Kenya), Christine van den Wyngaert (Belgium), Silvia Alejandra Fernndez de
Gurmendi (Argentina), Kuniko Ozaki (Japan), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Philippines), Howard
Morrison (United Kingdom), Anthony T. Carmona (Trinidad and Tobago), Olga Herrera
Carbuccia (Dominican Republic), Robert Fremr (Czech Republic) and Chile Eboe-Osuji
Office of the Prosecutor
The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for receiving referrals and any substantiated
information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, for examining them and for conducting
investigations and prosecutions before the Court. The Office is headed by the Prosecutor, Luis
Moreno-Ocampo (Argentina), who was elected by the States Parties for a term of nine years.
He is assisted by Deputy Prosecutor Mrs. Fatou Bensouda who is in charge of the Prosecution
Division of the Office of the Prosecutor.
The Registry
The Registry is responsible for the non-judicial aspects of the administration and
servicing of the Court. The Registry is headed by the Registrar who is the principal
administrative officer of the Court. The Registrar exercises his or her functions under the
authority of the President of the Court. The current Registrar, elected by the judges for a term of
five years, is Ms Silvana Arbia (Italy).
Other Offices
The Court also includes a number of semi-autonomous offices such as the Office of
Public Counsel for Victims and the Office of Public Counsel for Defense. These Offices fall
under the Registry for administrative purposes but otherwise function as wholly independent
offices. The Assembly of States Parties has also established a Trust Fund for the benefit of
victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court and the families of these victims


Transnational Crimes
Crimes that affect national borders
The concept of transnational crime, from a criminological perspective, originates from
the mid-1970s when the United Nations used the term in order to identify certain criminal
activities which transcend national jurisdictions
In 1995, the United Nations identified eighteen categories of transnational and mostly
organized criminality. Transnational crime was then defined as offences whose
inception, prevention and/or direct or indirect effects involved more than one country.
o Money laundering
o Terrorist activities
o Theft of art and cultural objects
o Theft of intellectual property
o Illicit trafficking in arms
o Aircraft hijacking

22 | P a g e


Sea piracy
Land hijacking
Insurance fraud
Computer crime
Environmental crime
Trafficking in persons
Trade in human body parts
Illicit drug trafficking
Fraudulent bankruptcy
Infiltration of legal businesses
Corruption and bribery of public officials
Corruption and bribery of party officials and elected representatives
Other offences committed by organized groups

Transnational Organized Crimes

Transnational organized crime involves the planning and execution of illicit business
ventures by groups or networks of individuals working in more than one country. These
criminal groups use systematic violence and corruption to achieve their goals. Crimes
commonly include money laundering; human smuggling; cyber crime; and trafficking of
humans, drugs, weapons, endangered species, body parts, or nuclear material.
Major Transnational Organized Crime Groups
Russian Mafia Around 200 Russian groups that operate in nearly 60 countries
worldwide. They have been involved in racketeering, fraud, tax evasion, gambling, drug
trafficking, arson, robbery, and murder.
La Cosa Nostra Known as the Italian or Italian-American mafia. The most prominent
organized crime group in the world from the 1920s to the 1990s. They have been
involved in violence, arson, bombings, torture, loan sharking, gambling, drug trafficking,
health insurance fraud, and political and judicial corruption.
Yakuza Japanese criminal group. Often involved in multinational criminal activities,
including human trafficking, gambling, prostitution, and undermining licit businesses.
Fuk Ching Chinese organized criminal group in the United States. They have been
involved in smuggling, street violence, and human trafficking.
Triads Underground criminal societies based in Hong Kong. They control secret
markets and bus routes and are often involved in money laundering and drug trafficking.
Heijin Taiwanese gangsters who are often executives in large corporations. They are
often involved in white collar crimes, such as illegal stock trading and bribery, and
sometimes run for public office.
Jao Pho Organized crime group in Thailand. They are often involved in illegal political
and business activity.
Red Wa Gangsters from Thailand. They are involved in manufacturing and trafficking
United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
Also called the Palermo Convention, The Convention against Transnational Organized
Crime is a United Nations-sponsored multilateral treaty against transnational organized
crime, adopted in 2000. By June 2012, 147 countries and 168 parties have signed the
According to Article 3 of the Convention: an offence is transnational in nature if:
o It is committed in more than one state;

23 | P a g e

It is committed in one state but substantial part of its preparation, planning,

direction or control takes place in another state;
o It is committed in one State but involves an organized criminal group that
engages in criminal activities in more that one state; or
o It is committed in one state but has substantial effects in another state.
It has three protocols (the Palermo Protocols):
o Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially
Women and Children;
o Protocol against smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.
o Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms
All of these instruments contain elements of the current international law on human
trafficking, arms trafficking and money laundering
The convention and the protocols fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and
The Protocol covers the following:

Defining the crime of trafficking in human beings; essentially, trafficking is the transport
of persons, by means of coercion, deception, or consent for the purpose of exploitation
such as forced or consensual labor or prostitution:
o "Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harboring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other
forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or
of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits
to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the
purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation
of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of
organs... The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended
exploitation set forth [above] shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth
[above] have been used.
Facilitating the return and acceptance of children who have been victims of cross-border
trafficking, with due regard to their safety;
Prohibiting the trafficking of children (which is defined as being a person under 18 years
of age) for purposes of commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), exploitative
labor practices or the removal of body parts;
Suspending parental rights of parents, caregivers or any other persons who have
parental rights in respect of a child should they be found to have trafficked a child;
Ensuring that definitions of trafficking reflect the need for special safeguards and care for
children, including appropriate legal protection;
Ensuring that trafficked persons are not punished for any offences or activities related to
their having been trafficked, such as prostitution and immigration violations;
Ensuring that victims of trafficking are protected from deportation or return where there
are reasonable grounds to suspect that such return would represent a significant
security risk to the trafficked person or their family;

24 | P a g e

Considering temporary or permanent residence in countries of transit or destination for

trafficking victims in exchange for testimony against alleged traffickers, or on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds;
Providing for proportional criminal penalties to be applied to persons found guilty of
trafficking in aggravating circumstances, including offences involving trafficking in
children or offences committed or involving complicity by state officials; and,
Providing for the confiscation of the instruments and proceeds of trafficking and related
offences to be used for the benefit of trafficked persons.

Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air

The purpose of this Protocol is to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants, as well
as to promote cooperation among States Parties to that end, while protecting the rights
of smuggled migrants (Article 2).
Also called The Smuggling Protocol, it entered into force on 28 January 2004. By 2012
the protocol had been signed by 112 states, and ratified by 130
The Protocol is aimed at the protection of rights of migrants and the reduction of the
power and influence of organized criminal groups that abuse migrants. It emphasizes the
need to provide migrants with humane treatment, and the need for comprehensive
international approaches to combating people smuggling, including socio-economic
measures that address the root causes of migration.
The signatory States must establish the following acts as criminal offences when
committed with the aim of obtaining a financial or material benefit:
o The smuggling of migrants, that is, procuring the illegal entry of a person into a
State of which he is not a national or a permanent resident;
o Producing fraudulent travel or identity documents;
o The use of a document by a person other than the rightful holder;
o Procuring, providing or possessing fraudulent documents; enabling a person to
remain in a country without complying with the necessary requirements.
International Cooperation
o The States Parties will work towards strengthening their borders and are entitled
to deny entry to persons implicated in the smuggling of migrants.
o Countries with common borders or lying on routes used by criminal groups are
required to exchange certain information such as that relating to the embarkation
and destination points used by the traffickers, the routes and modes of
transportation used and the methods of concealment of migrants, etc.
o Immigration officials and other competent agents shall be trained in preventing
the smuggling of migrants, in the humane treatment of such persons and in
protecting their rights. To this end, the States shall cooperate with each other and
with international organisations, non-governmental organisations and other
competent organisations, as well as with other elements of civil society to ensure
that there is adequate personnel training.
o Furthermore, States with relevant expertise and appropriate technical resources
should help States that are frequently countries of origin or transit for migrants.
Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms

"The purpose of this Protocol is to promote, facilitate and strengthen cooperation among
States Parties in order to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and
trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition" (Article 2)
The provisions of the Protocol that touch upon Community competences are those

25 | P a g e

concerning the marking of firearms, record-keeping, import, export and transit licensing,
border controls, brokers, and deactivation of firearms
o The Protocol requires States to establish as criminal offences the illicit
manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms as well as tampering with markings
on firearms.
o The Protocol requires that States implement a series of control measures on
firearms and ammunition such as maintaining records on firearms markings and
transactions, marking firearms for the purposes of identification and tracing and
establishing effective export, import and transit licensing systems Importantly, the
Protocol requires mandatory marking not only at the time of manufacture, but
also at the time of import to facilitate the identification and tracing of each firearm
o The Protocol calls for cooperation at the bilateral, regional and international
levels in the exchange of information, tracing of firearms, training, technical,
financial and material assistance among states to mitigate the illicit trade in and
manufacture of firearms. Further, it encourages states to seek support and
cooperation amongst manufacturers, dealers, importers, exporters, brokers and
commercial carriers of firearms
o The Protocol calls for the regulation of arms brokering and the inclusion of
information on brokers and brokering activities in exchanges of information
between states.
The draft Firearms Protocol was finalized at the twelfth session of the ad hoc Committee
responsible for preparing the instruments for the fight against organized crime, held in
Vienna from 26 February to 2 March 2001, and adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly in Resolution No 55/255 of 8 June 2001. It has been open for signature by
States and regional economic integration organizations from the thirtieth day following its
adoption, at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York.


Extradition is the formal surrender by a State (the requested State) of a person present
in its territory to another State (the requesting State) that seeks the person either in order to
prosecute him or her or to enforce a sentence already handed down by its courts.
Extradition is the oldest form of international cooperation in criminal matters and is
recognized as an effective instrument of international cooperation in law enforcement. As a
means of cooperation that directly affects the freedom of individuals, extradition is seen as also
the most complex mechanism and the one that raises the most challenges, in particular
between States with different legal traditions.
Extradition procedure: overview and comparative aspects
The way the extradition process depends mainly on the national law of the requested
State. The procedure therefore varies from one country to another, to a greater or lesser extent,
according to each countrys legal tradition.
Common-law countries share similarities in their procedures, but these differ from those
of civil-law countries, for example. This results in many differences in the positive law and

26 | P a g e

procedural law of each country, these differences may obstruct efficient extradition. The timeline
below shows the main stages of the extradition procedure.

Provisional arrest for the purpose of extradition

Request for provisional arrest
If the circumstances warrant and/or in case of urgency, the legal authority of the requested
State may order the provisional arrest of a wanted person before receipt of the formal request
for extradition. A request for provisional arrest attests to the existence in the requesting State of
a judicial act ordering the arrest or of a conviction. The obligatory elements that the request
must contain are specified in a number of multilateral or bilateral treaties on extradition.
Transmission of the request for provisional arrest
A request for provisional arrest can generally be made by any means of transmission
producing a hard copy or equivalent. It is generally sent, however, through these channels:

Diplomatic channels - The mandating authority may transmit its request translated
into the language of the requested State through diplomatic channels, via
embassies and consular officers.

International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). - The request for provisional

arrest may be transmitted through INTERPOL.
Time Period
This time period varies among the different regional treaties: it is between:

18 and 40 days for States parties to the European Convention on Extradition,

20 days for States parties to the ECOWAS Convention on Extradition,
30 days for States parties to the Arab League Convention on Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Matters

27 | P a g e

60 days for the States parties to the Inter-American Convention on Extradition.

In the absence of a treaty, the requirements of the requesting State must be followed.
Note: A request for extradition does not constitute a presumption of guilt. The obligation to
prosecute if extradition is refused (aut dedere aut judicare) does not mean, however, that an
allegation proving to have no basis must be brought to court.
Simplified extradition
The person consents to be extradited
If the person who is the object of the request for extradition gives his or her explicit
consent before the decision of the competent requested authority concerning the extradition has
been made, the requested State may grant extradition without formal extradition proceedings.
Prior to giving such consent, the person who is the object of the request must be
(a) of his or her right to formal extradition proceedings;
(b) and of the rights and protections he or she is entitled to under those proceedings, as well as
the legal consequences of his or her consent.

Diplomatic channels
Extradition is an inter-State diplomatic act. Extradition is a form of cooperation between States.
Thus, any request for extradition, as well as the response to it, is inter-State diplomatic acts. An
extradition act is the act of an executive authority and not of the judicial authority.

In principle, therefore, all requests for extradition should be presented through diplomatic
It is only after receipt of the request for extradition by the Government of the requested
State that the latter transmits it to its competent national jurisdictions in order for them to
establish the validity of the request.

There may be three types of extradition procedure in the requested State:

(1) A purely administrative procedure;
(2) A purely judicial procedure;
(3) A procedure that is both judicial and administrative (the most common).

According to legislation relating to extradition, there are two types of inquiry:

(a) A formal inquiry based on the documents attached to the request for extradition, the purpose
of which is to certify that the formal conditions for extradition are fulfilled (system of civil law
(b) A material inquiry based on the merits of the case, which examines the evidence in order to
determine that the case for prosecution is well-founded (common law system).

28 | P a g e

The traditional diplomatic channel of transmission of requests for extradition requires several
steps: it requires not only the involvement of embassy services, but also that of departments of
justice and foreign offices.
In order to accelerate the procedure:

Other entities, such as central authorities, are increasingly called upon;

Modern means of communication are increasingly used so that the request may advance

Note: The principle extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) which is the legal
obligation of states under public international law to prosecute persons who commit
serious international crimes where no other state has requested extradition, is clearly
established in the negotiated universal instruments against terrorism and is also a binding rule,
since it is embodied in Security Council resolution 1373 (2001).

Applicable law: execution of the request in accordance with the law of the requested or
requesting State

Principle: compliance with the legislation of the requested party.

Extradition is subject to the domestic law of the requested party and to the obligations
set forth in the bilateral or multilateral extradition agreements, as well as to international law, in
particular, human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.

Rule of Speciality

In accordance with the principle of speciality, the extradition granted is valid only in
relation to the facts mentioned in the request for extradition and for which extradition was


As long as the requested State does not give its consent to a new prosecution on the
basis of an additional request, the extradited person may not be prosecuted, detained or
surrendered to a third State for another offence committed prior to his extradition.
If the person was extradited by virtue of a conviction, only the sentence handed down in
relation to the case for which the extradition was granted may be enforced. If the requesting
State determines that, subsequent to the extradition, offences committed before that date
should be prosecuted, it may request permission from the requested State to prosecute based
on the new facts (request for extension of extradition)

29 | P a g e

Liaison magistrates
Counsel and expertise
The magistrates role of facilitator in matters of international criminal cooperation also
encompasses extradition procedures. Indeed, there are significant differences between
countries concerning the processing of such procedures, for example, in whether they give
precedence to a request for provisional arrest or to a request for extradition.
The establishment of the file must also take into account the avenues of appeal
available in the country in question: for example, opening an extradition file in the United
Kingdom is directly dependent on habeas corpus and judicial review.
It is possible for a requesting State to re-extradite a wanted person to a third State?
Legal bases for extradition
The legal basis for extradition may be a:

an Ad hoc agreement or
the principles of reciprocity or comity principles that are generally supported by domestic

In practice, extradition is most commonly granted on the basis of bilateral and multilateral
treaties concluded among a number of States at the bilateral, regional and global levels. Such
treaties either deal exclusively with extradition or contain specific provisions on the subject.
Unlike bilateral treaties, multilateral treaties can serve as a legal basis for a large number of
States, thus averting the need for hundreds of bilateral treaties. In particular, they are very
helpful for States whose position is that they will NOT agree to extradite without a treaty in order
to avoid being used as a haven for escaping extradition.
Note: The most important of the multilateral treaties are the universal conventions
against terrorism, which may constitute a sufficient legal basis for States that need to invoke a
Agreement based on reciprocity and comity
Many States prefer to extradite to countries with which they have concluded a treaty. However,
in the absence of a treaty or if the treaty is not applicable (for example, if it does not include the
offence for which the individual is requested in the list of extraditable offences), it is still possible
for most States to extradite on the basis of reciprocity and comity.
By requesting extradition on the basis of reciprocity, a State undertakes to do the same for
another State that responds positively to its request. In practice, unless the law or national
custom provides otherwise, the assurance of reciprocity may be expressed in the form of a
diplomatic note attached to the extradition request or contained in the request itself.
Since ultimately the decision whether or not to extradite an individual often falls within the
sovereign right of States, extradition may be granted, in the absence of a treaty, on the basis of
the comity, or courtesy, of nations, provided this does not contrary to public policy. (Comity

30 | P a g e

contributes to the maintenance of good relations between States.)

In countries where extradition is granted on the basis of the principle of reciprocity or comity,
national law provides for the set of conditions in which the extradition procedure should go
forward in the absence of a treaty.
For example, many francophone countries apply the French Extradition Act of 10 March 1927: In
the absence of a treaty, the conditions, procedure and effects of extradition are determined by the
provisions of the present Act. If there is no specific extradition law, many practitioners resort to
the applicable criminal procedure law, or even sometimes extend the application of certain new
laws that contain provisions on extradition, for example, a law on money-laundering and
international cooperation in relation to the proceeds of crime.

Prior offences
The rule of speciality limits the rights of the requesting State that made the original
request for extradition to re-extradite the person to another State (third State) without first
obtaining the permission of the original requested State. Consequently, the same principles and
procedures of speciality also apply to the possibility of re-extradition.
Possible solutions where the requesting authority receives a request for re-extradition or
surrender to a third State for offence(s) committed prior to the surrender and other than the
offence(s) on which the extradition was based:

If the decision to extradite includes the express condition that the person concerned shall not
be extradited to a third State, the requesting State is bound by this.
If the extradition is granted on the express condition that the requesting State shall reextradite the person concerned to a third State (for example, where there is a plurality of
extradition requests), the requesting State shall comply.
If the decision to extradite contains no mention of the possibility of re-extradition, the
conventions sometimes provide for the possibility of re-extraditing with the permission of the
requested State.

Note: If the response to the request for extradition is negative, the requested State must declare
jurisdiction and submit the case against the individual concerned for prosecution, under the aut
dedere aut judicare principle.
Bars to extradition under international human rights and refugee law
The requested State is bound to examine the consequences of extradition for the
individual concerned. It must refuse to extradite if this would be in breach of its non-refoulement
obligations under relevant international treaties and customary international law.
The obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement as provided for under
international refugee and human rights law takes precedence over any duty to extradite on the
basis of a bilateral or multilateral extradition agreement or extradition-related provisions in other
international treaties.
Respect for human rights. International human rights law establishes a mandatory bar
on extradition under certain circumstances:

Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment expressly provides that no State Party shall

31 | P a g e

expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he [or she] would be in danger of being
subjected to torture.
The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life and of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, as interpreted by the Human Rights Committee, also covers a bar on refoulement to a
risk of such treatment. Regional human rights treaties provide for similar obligations.
Note: Extradition may be denied if the requested State is concerned that the wanted person
would be subjected to serious violations of fair trial guarantees in the requesting State.
Agreement on the condition of mutual trust (based on diplomatic assurances). States
may agree on a positive outcome to the extradition request, on condition that the requesting
State commits itself to respect the rights in question
Example: France granted extradition of a United States citizen to his home country on
condition that the prosecuting authorities of the federal state guaranteed not to impose
the death penalty, since that goes against French public order (Council of States, 17
October 1993). It is for the executive body of the requested State to judge whether the
assurances given by the requesting State are satisfactory. Nevertheless, States cannot
resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture and ill-treatment where
there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being
subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return.
Specific issues
Trial in absentia
Where a request for extradition is issued for execution of an arrest warrant based on a
judgement in absentia, it is advisable for the requesting party to offer the guarantee that the
person shall be retried with the full benefit of the rights of defense, so as to avoid denial of the
extradition request.
Statute of limitations
By virtue of the principle of dual criminality, according to which the extraditable offence is
required to be punishable in the requesting State and would be punishable in the requested
State, were it committed in its territory, when the statute of limitations has expired in the
requested State, extradition may be refused. However, it should be noted that this principle is in
Conditions relating to the individual
Nationality of the person sought
While a requesting State may request the extradition of any individual, (even one of its own

32 | P a g e

nationals) it is traditional for many States, especially civil-law States, not to extradite their own
This does not mean that they can find refuge in their home country: the non-extradition rule in
respect of nationals is tempered by the existence of active personality principle, which allows
these States to establish their competence and to prosecute their nationals for offences that
they have committed abroad. This rule does not exist in most common-law countries, which
extradite their nationals.
Many of the States have agreed bilateral treaties that offer the requested State the choice of
extraditing their nationals or not and, in the case of refusal, the State undertakes to bring the
case before its own judicial authorities in conformity with the aut dedere aut iudicare principle.
The political nature of the offence
The exception for the political nature of an offence is a standard clause found in the
majority of extradition treaties and in many States national laws. Traditionally, extradition
requests were rejected if the requested State maintained that the offence in question was of a
political nature. That principle originates from the 19th century and is based on the idea that
resistance to political oppression and dictatorship must be supported.
Although widely known, the term political offence is seldom defined in national treaties
or legislations. What is more, the exception has always been difficult to analyse from a legal
point of view, except when applied in its most simple form to non-violent political expression or
Problems arise in the case of offences that are similar to ordinary offences against
persons or property, but have been committed on political grounds. These are interpreted by the
case law of countries according to the various criteria that they have developed to determine
whether an offence is an illegal attempt to force governmental change or is more akin to an
ordinary offence. However, no coherent or satisfactory rule of applicability has emerged, and
excusing attacks on innocent civilians on political grounds is seen increasingly as tantamount to
protecting terrorists.
Conditions relating to punishment
Severity of the punishment
Since extradition is a cooperation measure that affects the freedom of the individual in
question, as well as a costly mechanism for the States concerned, it follows that it should be
reserved for relatively serious offences. Sometimes, the severity of the punishment results from
the nature of the offence: many extradition treaties and national laws list extraditable offences
and strictly limit extradition to this list.
One major disadvantage is that it is necessary to renegotiate or supplement the treaty if
the two States adopt laws that include new offences, or if the list inadvertently omits a serious
offence that is punishable in both States. In order to limit the duration and cost of negotiations,
States have preferred to include a general clause in more recent agreements, stipulating a
certain degree of severity for the incurred or pronounced sentence. Offences no longer need to
be specifically listed in order for extradition to take place.
Example article 2 of the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition,

33 | P a g e

extraditable offences
For the purposes of the present Treaty, extraditable offences are offences that are
punishable under the laws of both Parties by imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty
for a maximum period of at least [one/two] year(s), or by a more severe penalty. Where
the request for extradition relates to a person who is wanted for the enforcement of a
sentence of imprisonment or other deprivation of liberty imposed for such an offence,
extradition shall be granted only if a period of at least [four/six] months of such sentence
remains to be served.
Nature of certain punishments
Death penalty
Some States refuse to grant extradition to a country where the death penalty can be
imposed. This is notably the case for State parties to the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at the abolition of the death penalty,
in force since 1991, as well as for State parties to regional instruments (in particular the Protocol
to the 1990 American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty within the
Organization of American States, and Protocol No. 13 to the 2002 Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all
circumstances within the Council of Europe). States may, however, agree to the extradition
request on the condition that the requesting State undertakes not to pronounce or implement
capital punishment.
Conditions relating to competence
Competence of the requesting State According to certain bilateral extradition treaties and
national laws, extradition may only be granted if the offence has been committed within the
requesting States territory. To avoid extradition being refused solely for this reason and
resulting in impunity, the universal counter-terrorism treaties include the following legal fiction:
Offences shall be treated, for the purposes of extradition between State parties, as though they
had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the
States that have established their jurisdiction.
Competence of the requested State Many bilateral extradition treaties and legislations state
that extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition has been requested has
been committed within the territory of the requested State. This rule is justified notably by the
fact that public policy in the requested State has been contravened.
Conditions relating to procedure
Fair treatment
That includes the exercise of rights and adherence to guarantees established by national
law and the applicable provisions of international law, notably those relating to human rights.
Reference to international law has become common practice since the 1997 International
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. Among the instruments relating to
human rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in article 14 recalls the
right of all individuals to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial

34 | P a g e

tribunal established by law, which will determine any criminal charge against him.
Extradition may therefore be refused if the requested State judges that the extradition
might expose the criminal to treatment in the requesting State that is considered unfair.
The ne bis in idem principle
The ne bis in idem principle is a general principle of criminal law in the majority of
national systems, according to which no person may be tried or punished in criminal
proceedings twice for the same offence(s). It is set out in article 14 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights. However, application of the principle is generally confined within a
single national system.
In extradition treaties, the principle is traditionally recognized in relation to the requested State,
i.e. the extradition will be opposed if the individual concerned has already been acquitted or
finally convicted of the same offence(s) by the requested State.
There is a tendency to apply this principle more widely, particularly within the European Union,
where countries undertake to recognize the judicial decisions of all member States. Under
certain conditions, those countries can refuse to execute a European arrest warrant if the
individual has already been convicted by a third State (other than the State that issued the
extradition request) for the same offence(s). Nevertheless, there is no general rule in
international law that obliges countries to apply the ne bis in idem principle, and States are not
obliged to enforce decisions passed by foreign jurisdictions.
Example article 9 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition
Extradition shall not be granted if final judgment has been passed by the competent
authorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offence or
offences for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent
authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate
proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences.
Statute of limitations, amnesty and pardon
In the majority of national laws and bilateral conventions, extradition may not take place
if a basic obstacle, such as a statute of limitations, an amnesty or a pardon, is encountered.
Forms of surrender used as alternatives to extradition
Extradition is a separate concept from deportation or the expulsion of non-nationals,
which are unilateral acts that do not involve a request from another State and are aimed at
implementing immigration policy and maintaining public order and security, rather than helping
another State in the exercise of criminal proceedings.
Extradition is also distinct from surrender procedures in international criminal
jurisdictions, as well as those set out on a regional level, such as the European arrest warrant.
Other forms of surrender are used as alternatives to extradition for various reasons.
Broadly speaking, the arguments used are that extradition procedures are too unwieldy, that

35 | P a g e

they have failed in the past or that the length of time they take would allow the fugitive to escape
International law does not stipulate that regulated methods of extradition are the only
means that can be used to transfer suspected criminals from one country to another to face
prosecution. However, if States decide not to use such methods, they must still ensure that the
person is surrendered with a minimum necessary adherence to regular procedures that conform
to international law, notably instruments relating to human rights. Although extradition
procedures are often thought to be long and unwieldy, their complexity is a by-product of
providing minimum guarantees to the investigated persons. A fugitive can indeed be transferred
outside extradition channels in order to bring him or her before a court and buy time, but this
could lead to the proceedings being annulled in the requesting State.
International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) is the worlds largest
international police organization. It was established in 1923 and currently is located in Lyon,
France. INTERPOL is an international police organization that seeks to facilitate cross-border
police cooperation and support and seeks to assist organizations whose mission is to prevent or
combat international crime.
As early as 1914, police officers, lawyers, and judges from 14 countries discussed
creating an international police organization in Monaco, but the formation was delayed due to
World War I and postponed to the Second International Police Congress in Vienna, Austria.
The movement stemmed from an emerging agreement that arrest procedures, identification
techniques, criminal records, and extradition proceedings increasingly require an international
consensus and integration in a globalizing world.
Currently consisting of 190 member nations, it is the second largest intergovernmental
organization after the United Nations. Former US Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Enforcement, Ronald Noble, is the Secretary General of INTERPOL and presides over the
General Secretariat of 84 member nations.
Under its constitution, INTERPOL is banned from dealing with political, military, religious,
or racial crimes in order to preserve its neutrality. Thus, INTERPOL focuses primarily on broadranging issues with international impact, such as:

public safety, terrorism, organized crime, crimes against humanity, environmental

crime, genocide, war crimes, piracy, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons
smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white collar
crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime, and corruption.

While discussing and issuing policy directives for these issues, INTERPOL works closely
with regional and national police organizations, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),
the World In- tellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the
UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the World Customs
Organization (WCO).
The founding members (Austria, Belgium, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia) established
the ICPO-INTERPOL Constitution and General Regulations, which charges the organization

36 | P a g e

with the duty to assure mutual assistance between criminal police authorities within the limits of
national laws and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and to
establish and develop institutions to suppress ordinary law crimes.
Unlike normal law enforcement agencies, INTERPOL does not make arrests or process
criminals; instead, it acts as an administrative liaison between different police organizations,
providing communication and database assistancea job that is vitally important given
language barriers that limit police work across borders.
Unlike the United Nations in its mandate, powers, and responsibilities, INTERPOL has
the unique capacity to deter international crime in vastly different types of organized crime.
INTERPOL provides secure global police communication services, operational police
support services, and police training and development. It is governed by a General Assembly,
consisting of delegates appointed by member countries, which meets once a year to make all
major decisions affecting general policy.
The mandate and primary function of INTERPOL is to support the police services of its
member countries in their efforts to prevent crime and conduct criminal investigations as
efficiently and effectively as possible. Thus, together with the NCBs, INTERPOL facilitates cross
border police cooperation and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services
whose mission is to prevent or combat crime.
INTERPOL is funded primarily by member country annual statutory contributions. To
assess each member countries dues contribution, INTERPOL uses a formula based on the
countries economic well being. This formula was renegotiated in the late 1990s and
incorporated a gradual increase in the percentage share paid by the wealthiest nations.

37 | P a g e

INTERPOL utilizes a system of color-coded international notices and diffusions that

share crime-related information with each member country. This information concerns

individuals wanted for serious crimes, missing persons, unidentified bodies, possible threats to
public safety, and criminals modus operandi, as described in the following table. As of February
2009, INTERPOL had nearly 25,000 active notices, of which most were red.

INTERPOL believes that standards, guidelines, recommendations, and tools which

INTERPOL uses and provides to the international law enforcement community, such as its
databases and I-24/7 secure global police communications network, could be included under
the umbrella of best practices. INTERPOLs range of databases alone covers key information
such as names of criminals and suspected individuals, search requests for wanted persons,
fingerprints, photographs, DNA profiles, stolen vehicles, stolen and lost travel documents, and
illicit weapons relating to criminal cases.
INTERPOLs Constitution (Article 32) requires each member country to appoint a body
to operate as a national focal point for international law enforcement cooperation within the
INTERPOL framework. This appointed body is called a National Central Bureau, or NCB.

38 | P a g e

In furtherance of increasing communications and cooperation within the international law
enforcement community, each INTERPOL member country maintains a National Central Bureau
(NCB). The NCB, staffed by highly trained law enforcement officers, is the designated contact
point for the INTERPOL General Secretariat and other member countries requiring assistance
with transnational investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives. The NCB is
also the national contact point for international enquiries.
In order to achieve these aims, INTERPOL conducts all of its activities within the framework of
the following four core services or functions:

Secure Global Police Communications Services

Operational Data Services and Databases for Police
Operational Police Support Services
Training and Development

Through its on-going commitment and dedication to fighting terrorism world-wide,

INTERPOL is dedicated to continuing to improve its existing law enforcement officer network,
and to establishing new ones, so that in time, countries all over the world will not only be more
aware of the threats associated with terrorism, but will also have the technical infrastructure,
capacities, and capabilities to combat them.
INTERPOL Philippines
The Philippine Center on Transnational Crime (PCTC), which houses INTERPOL
Manila, is the national law enforcement agency which carries investigations beyond the borders
of the Philippines. Its priority crime areas include:

Illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances;

Money laundering;
Arms smuggling;
Trafficking in persons;
Any crime, which impacts the stability and security of the Philippines.

The PCTC coordinates all transnational crime operations carried out by other
government agencies of the Philippines. It designs new projects to strengthen the countrys
combined response and ensures the efficient exchange of information. The PCTC recommends
ways to better prevent transnational crime and to detect and apprehend criminals operating
across borders.
A central database of national and international legislation underpins these
recommendations. Activities are reinforced through training programmes delivered in
cooperation with national government agencies, other countries and international
organizations. The INTERPOL Manila assists the PCTC.
The National Central Bureau (NCB) for the Philippines is an inter-ministerial entity, which
is not part of the Philippine National Police but instead is directly attached to the Office of the
President. As such it benefits from direct access to the services of all law enforcement agencies

39 | P a g e

in the Philippines. The NCB is referred to as NALECC-SCILEC (National Law Enforcement

Coordinating Committee - Sub Committee on International Law Enforcement Cooperation).
INTERPOL Manila is an integral part of the PCTC. Its mission is to serve as the liaison office
and main coordinating body for international police cooperation on behalf of all law enforcement
agencies in the Philippines. Its main duties include:

Monitoring and coordinating law enforcement activities relating to transnational

crimes affecting the Philippines;
Operating and maintaining an operations center to serve as the focal point for
international cooperation on transnational crime for all law enforcement agencies
in the Philippines;
Acting as a NALECC Sub Committee in the monitoring of crime and activities
which threaten national security and the economy.

40 | P a g e



Article 15 of the European Convention on Extradition.

Cassese, A. (2008). International criminal law. (2nd ed., pp. 3-31). New York: Oxford University
Interpol world model un 2012. (2012). Retrieved from
Facing History Ourselves. (2012). Nuremberg Trials Fact Sheet. Retrieved November 30, 2012
from the World Wide Web:
United Nation . (2009). Manual on international cooperation in criminal matters related to
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2219, No. 39464.
Transnational Organized Crime | National Institute of Justice. (2007, November 15). National
Institute of Justice: Criminal Justice Research, Development and Evaluation.
Retrieved December 1, 2012, from
United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, U., &
United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.
(1995). Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders. Vienna, Austria: Dept. of International Economic and Social Affairs, Centre
for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2004). United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime and the protocols thereto. New York: United Nations.
Van Schaack, B., & Slye, R. (2007.). A concise history of international criminal law. Santa Clara
University School of Law, 07(42), 7-47.

41 | P a g e

42 | P a g e