Ítem
Acceso Abierto

Content and mandatory nature of the requirements under article 74(5) of the icc statute in relation to no case to answer decisions

Mostrar el registro sencillo de la publicación
dc.contributor.gruplacClínica Jurídica Internacionalspa
dc.creatorCampos Sánchez, Sofía
dc.creatorJaramillo Gómez, María Fernanda
dc.creatorLinares Botero, Sofía
dc.creatorMosquera López, Sara
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-09T02:16:21Z
dc.date.available2021-07-09T02:16:21Z
dc.date.created2019-12
dc.descriptionEste artículo es parte del trabajo de investigación de la Clínica de Derecho Internacional, organizado por la Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia y el Instituto Iberoamericano de La Haya para la Paz, los Derechos Humanos y la Justicia Internacional (IIH), en cooperación con la Oficina. de Defensa Pública de Víctimas (OPCV) de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI). Responde a las siguientes preguntas: En relación con el primer motivo de apelación contra la Sala de Primera Instancia I, no hay caso para responder a la decisión en relación con Laurent Gbagbo y Charles Blé Goudé, ¿cuáles son los requisitos del artículo 74 (5) del Estatuto? ¿Son todos obligatorios? ¿Puede una decisión que carece de alguno de esos requisitos producir efectos jurídicamente vinculantes?spa
dc.description.abstractThis paper is part of the research work by the International Law Clinic, organized by the Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia and the Ibero-American Institute of the Hague for Peace, Human Rights and International Justice (IIH), in cooperation with the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It answers the following questions: In relation to the first ground of appeal against Trial Chamber I’s no case to answer decision in relation to Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé, which are the requirements of Article 74(5) of the Statute? Are they all mandatory? Can a decision lacking any of those requirements produce legally binding effects?eng
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.48713/10336_31788
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/31788
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosariospa
dc.publisher.departmentFacultad de Jurisprudenciaspa
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto Completo)spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Pretto and others v. Italy. Judgment 8 December 1983.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Axen v. Germany. Judgement. 8 December 1983.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Hadjianastassiou v. Greece. Judgement. 16 December 1992.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Ruiz Torija v. Spain, Judgment. 9 December 1994.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Suominen v. Finland. Judgement. 24 July 2003.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Rayakib Biryukov v. Russia. Judgment. 17 January 2008.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Taxquet v. Belgium. Judgement. 16 November 2010.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Cerovšek and Božičnik v. Slovenia, 7 March 2017.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Nikolay Genov v. Bulgaria. Judgement. 13 July 2017.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Judgment. 23 June 2005.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Claude-Reyes et al v. Chile. Judgement 19 September 2006.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Judgment. 21 November 2007.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Judgment. 5 August 2008.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Judgment. 1 July 2011.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Judgment. 1 September 2011.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of J. v. Perú. Judgment. 27 November 2013.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Judgment. 27 August 2014.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Judgment. 3 May 2016.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Judgment. 8 March 2018.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Rico v. Argentina. Judgment. 2 September 2019.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica. Communication No. 210/1986.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Roberto Zelaya Blanco v. Nicaragua. Communication Num. 328/1988.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCase of Lenford Hamilton v. Jamaica. Communication Num. 333/1988.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGeneral Comment No. 32. Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial. U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007).spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGeneral Comment No. 13. Article 14. Administration of Justice, Equality before the Courts and the Right to a Fair and a Public Hearing by an Independent Court Established by Law. 04/13/1984.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo. Judgement. 8 June 2018.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v Kayishema. Judgment 1 June 2001.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema. Judgment 16 November 2001.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda. Judgment 26 May 2003.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Eliézer Niyitegeka. Judgement 9 July 2004.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza. Judgement 20 May 2005.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Juvénal Kajelijeli. Judgment 23 May 2005.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Aloys Simba. Judgement 27 November 2007.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Tharcisse Muvunyi. Judgment 29 August 2008.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Francois Karera. Judgement. 2 February 2009.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Augustin Ndindiliyimana. Judgement. 11 February 2014.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. The Prosecutor v. Furundzija. Judgment 20 July 2000.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic. Judgement. 12 June 2002.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Kvocka et al. Judgement 28 February 2005.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilic, and Vinko Martinovic. Judgement 3 May 2006.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Fatmir Limaj. Judgement. 27 September 2007.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAppeals Chamber. Prosecutor v. Momcilo Krajisnik. 17 March 2009.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTrial Chamber. Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic. Decision on motion for access to confidential materials in completed cases. 5 June 2009.spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKlamberg, Mark. ‘Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court’. Brussels: Center for International Law Research and Policy, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2017. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/aa0e2b/pdf/spa
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTerrir, Frank. ‘The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary’. Edited by Paola Gaetam, John R.W.D. Jones, Antonio Cassese. Vol. II. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.spa
dc.source.instnameinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.source.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
dc.subjectOficina de Asesoramiento Público para las Víctimas (OPCV) de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI)spa
dc.subjectAnálisis del artículo 74 (5) del Estatuto de la CPIspa
dc.subjectDerecho penal intencional
dc.subjectFallo de la ICC sobre el caso contra Laurent Gbagbo y Charles Blé Goudé
dc.subject.ddcDerecho penal
dc.subject.keywordOffice of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) of the International Criminal Court (ICC)eng
dc.subject.keywordAnalysis of Article 74 (5) of the ICC Statuteeng
dc.subject.keywordIntentional criminal laweng
dc.subject.keywordICC ruling on the case against Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé
dc.titleContent and mandatory nature of the requirements under article 74(5) of the icc statute in relation to no case to answer decisionseng
dc.title.TranslatedTitleContenido y naturaleza obligatoria de los requisitos del artículo 74 (5) del estatuto de la ICC respecto a decisiones relacionadas "No case to answer"spa
dc.typeworkingPapereng
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.spaDocumento de trabajospa
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
Memorandum on the Content and Mandatory Nature of Article 74 (5) Requirements.pdf
Tamaño:
291.33 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Descargar
Colecciones
Clínica Jurídica Internacional