Name-amankannojia

Roll no-IUU20LLM041

Ans-1
Nature of international crimes-
• crimes which violate or threaten fundamental values or interests protected by international law
and which are of concern to the international community as a whole:
criminal norms emanating from an international treaty or from customary international law,
without requiring intermediate provision of domestic law;
• criminal norms which have direct binding force on individuals and therefore provide for direct
individualcriminal responsibility:
• crimes which may be prosecuted before international or domestic criminal courts in accordance
with theprinciple of universal jurisdiction:
• a treaty provision or a rule of customary international law establishing liability for an act as an
international crime binds all (or a great majority of) States and individuals.
Characteristics of international crimes are-
It is a norm of such a fundamental character that its violation attracts the criminal responsibility
of individuals.
 Individual criminal liability exists at international law • The act is universally recognised
as criminal and is considered a grave matter of international concern, I.e., it is recognised
under customary law.
 The enforcement of this norm requires universal jurisdiction because it is not sufficient
to leave it to the forum of primary jurisdiction.
 Such an act endangers international relations (peace and security). In this sense, the
exercise of jurisdiction is not just for prosecution’s sake, but to fulfil the broader
objectives of contributing to international peace and security.
 The act breaches a moral obligation fixed by international law.
 There is a collective responsibility to enforce such rules. International crimes are
violations of jus cogensnorms.

Historical background-

international criminal law deals with different types of violations, such as political violence,
forced displacement and transfer of persons or protection of goods (e.g. cultural property). One
approach is to define international criminal law based on the protection of certain public goods
or interests. International criminal law protects individual and collective interests, such as peace
and security, individual and group rights or human dignity. Unlike human rights law, it does not
primarily seek to frame these interests as rights. It rather sets obligations. Individual or collective
rights (e.g. civil and political rights, minority rights and certain socio-economic or cultural
rights) are protected because of their relevance to broader community interests, or their context
(i.e. the organized or systematic nature of violations, their relevance in situations of armed
conflict or their trans boundary nature). There is no unified theory on what ought to be protected
by international criminal law, and what constitutes an ‘international crime’. Rather, what
international criminal law is has developed incrementally.
A second approach is to define an international crime by virtue of the nature of criminality.
Criminologists have used different notions to describe the foundations of international crimes.

Ans-2
In contrast to mitigating factors, aggravating factors are factors which justify an increase in
sentence length. The principles applicable to aggravating factors are set up with stringent
standards compared with mitigating factors. These strict conditions substantially limit the range
of possible circumstances that could be accepted in aggravation of a sentence. There are no
major differences in the types of factors judges used to increase a sentence. At both Tribunals,
the fact that a defendant occupied and abused a higher ranking position of authority and
influence constitutes the most common aggravating factor. At the ICTR, this factor was accepted
in aggravation of a sentence in 77.5% of cases (compared with 58% at the ICTY), The higher
proportion of cases with this particular aggravating factor at the ICTR is arguably connected to
the different composition of cases as the ICTR has dealt with a comparably lower number of
low-ranking defendants – the majority of accused exercised authority over others and their
criminal conduct was considered to be an abuse of their position of power/influence.
Aggravating factors often include the intention of the offender the extent of criminal planning
involved, abuse of a position of authority, offence was carried out in conjunction with an
organized criminal group, the extent of physical or economic harm to the victim, the status of the
victim (eg, a child, disabled, or elderly person), and any criminal records of the offender.
Additional aggravating factors can include the level of participation in an organized criminal
group, whether or not serious injury or death results, and repeat offending.
It is also to be noted that the analysis of aggravating factors is complicated by the fact that the
case law on the distinction between aggravating factors und the gravity of the crime is not
entirely clear. ICTR Judges sometimes con sider the gravity of crime to be one of the factors in
aggravation At the ICTY in some cases the circumstances such as special vulnerability of victims
extra suffering of victims active role in an attack or a multitude of criminal acts were accepted in
aggravation, yet in others the same factors were considered as falling within the notion of
gravity.
Some of the aggravating factors are:
1. Abuse of superior position/ position of authority or influence.
2. Special vulnerability of victims.
 3. Extra suffering of victims.
4. Cruelty of attack.
5. Duration of participation in crimes.
6. Active participant.
7. Encouragement of terror atmosphere.
Aggravating factors can include:
 Previous convictions particularly for serious offences.
 Evidence of prior planning.
 More serious harm was intended than actually resulted.
 The offence was committed as part of an organised criminal group.
 The offence was motivated by financial or material gain.
 Attempts to frustrate or impede the administration of justice.
 The offender committed crime while subject to pre trial or sentence conditions.
 Vulnerable victims were targeted.
 Weapons were used to frighten or injure victims or persons known to them.
 Deliberate for repeated violence or other forms of degradation were used.
 Offenders abused a position of power or authority or trust.
 There were multiple victims or multiple incidents.