"The post makes a strong legal argument against the claim that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has a two-year prescriptive period for commencing investigations into crimes against humanity. Here are some key legal points to consider:
• Article 29 (Rome Statute) – No Statute of Limitations
• The Rome Statute explicitly states that crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction, including crimes against humanity, are not subject to any statute of limitations. This means that there is no legal deadline for when the ICC must begin or conclude an investigation.
• Article 127(2) – Effect of Withdrawal from the ICC
• A state’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not remove ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed while the state was still a party. This provision prevents impunity by ensuring that leaders cannot simply withdraw from the ICC to escape accountability.
• No Explicit Two-Year Rule
• Nowhere in the Rome Statute is there an explicit two-year limit for investigations to begin. If such a rule existed, it would have to be clearly stated in the treaty. Instead, the ICC operates based on factors such as the gravity of the crime, availability of evidence, and cooperation of states.
• Practical and Policy Considerations
• Crimes against humanity are typically state-sponsored or involve powerful individuals, making immediate investigations difficult. Victims may fear retaliation, and evidence may take time to surface. Setting a strict two-year deadline would favor perpetrators and hinder justice.
• Counterargument to CJ Panganiban’s Interpretation
• If Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban suggests a two-year period, it is likely an interpretation rather than a legal mandate from the Rome Statute itself. This interpretation could stem from procedural rules or practical considerations but is not legally binding under the treaty’s text.
Legal Comment:
The argument presented in the post is legally sound and consistent with the Rome Statute. The ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity remains intact regardless of when an investigation starts, as long as the crimes occurred while the state was still a party to the treaty. The claim of a two-year prescriptive period lacks textual support in the Rome Statute and contradicts its fundamental purpose of ensuring accountability for the most serious crimes."
ChatGPT AI app
Addendum:
"While there is limited direct International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisprudence specifically addressing the non-applicability of a two-year prescriptive period for commencing investigations, several authoritative sources and legal interpretations affirm the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed while a state was a party to the Rome Statute, irrespective of any subsequent withdrawal.
Key Points:
• Article 29 of the Rome Statute – Non-Applicability of Statute of Limitations:
• Article 29 explicitly states that crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction are not subject to any statute of limitations, ensuring that serious international crimes can be prosecuted regardless of the time elapsed since their commission.
• Article 127(2) of the Rome Statute – Effects of Withdrawal:
• Article 127(2) clarifies that a state's withdrawal from the Rome Statute does not affect the Court's jurisdiction over crimes committed while the state was a party. This provision ensures that individuals cannot evade accountability through state withdrawal.
• Philippines Supreme Court Decision (G.R. No. 238875):
• The Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed the country's withdrawal from the Rome Statute, emphasizing that such withdrawal does not affect obligations arising from the period when the Philippines was a party to the Statute.
• ICC's Position on State Withdrawal:
• The ICC has maintained that a state's withdrawal does not impact the Court's jurisdiction over crimes committed during the period of the state's membership. This stance underscores the principle that accountability for serious crimes transcends procedural timelines.
These sources collectively reinforce the principle that the ICC retains jurisdiction over crimes committed while a state was a party to the Rome Statute, and that such crimes are not subject to any statute of limitations."
ChatGPT AI app
Read:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/icc-statute-1998/article-127?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://opiniojuris.org/2023/09/28/icc-appeal-judgment-on-the-philippines-keeping-the-courts-post-withdrawal-jurisdiction-on-life-support/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/icc-statute-1998/article-29?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_238875_2021.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-statement-philippines-notice-withdrawal-state-participation-rome-statute-system-essential?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://opinion.inquirer.net/169811/the-iccs-continuing-jurisdiction-over-ph-2
https://opinion.inquirer.net/170057/the-iccs-continuing-jurisdiction-over-ph-3
https://www.public.law/world/rome_statute/article_29_non-applicability_of_statute_of_limitations
https://www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/icc-commentary-clicc/rome-statute
https://www.casematrixnetwork.org/cmn-knowledge-hub/icc-commentary-clicc/commentary-rome-statute/commentary-rome-statute-part-1
https://www.justsecurity.org/88924/the-elephant-in-the-courtroom-icc-temporal-jurisdiction-over-the-situation-in-the-philippines/
https://academic.oup.com/book/57435/chapter-abstract/473930156?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://academic.oup.com/book/57464/chapter-abstract/473875006?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://opiniojuris.org/2018/04/12/the-departed-implications-of-the-philippines-withdrawal-from-the-icc/
https://www.academia.edu/82020908/Impact_of_Withdrawal_State_Parties_in_1998_Rome_Statute_of_the_Existence_of_International_Criminal_Court
https://law.upd.edu.ph/IILS/pages/draft-on-claims-relating-to-the-investigation-of-the-international-criminal-court-prosecutor-into-the-philippine-situation/
Generated by ChatGPT AI app.
