When the International Criminal Court was about to be established, Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, commented, "The prospect of the upcoming establishment of the International Criminal Court shows us the hope of universal justice, a simple and exciting hope. This hope will come true soon. We will always make unremitting efforts towards this goal. We hope that you ... will also do your best to work together to ensure that no ruler, country, military group or army can violate human rights anywhere with impunity. Only in this way can innocent people who are caught in wars and conflicts far away from us feel at ease, know that they are also protected by justice, can sit back and relax, and know that they also enjoy rights, and those who violate rights will be punished. "
Jose Ayala-Lasso, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that in the face of the reality that "those who killed 654.38 million people are less likely to face trial than those who killed one person", the purpose of establishing the International Criminal Court is "… to prevent criminals from going unpunished".
The International Committee of the Red Cross believes that the Statute of the International Criminal Court is an important breakthrough in the implementation of international humanitarian law: "The International Committee of the Red Cross has always supported the establishment of an international court to govern the most serious international crimes. As far as the International Committee of the Red Cross is concerned, the International Tribunal has the ability to play a role in promoting and encouraging domestic courts to fulfill their obligations and prosecute those who have committed war crimes. "
Cases concerning universal jurisdiction
According to the research data of Amnesty International, many countries after World War II, including Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Germany, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay, Venezuela and other countries, have established universal jurisdiction in their domestic laws. These laws have existed for a long time, but they are rarely cited. It was not until 1993 and 1994 that the United Nations Security Council established international tribunals to try the perpetrators of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda that countries gradually paid attention to the application of this universal jurisdiction and the international obligations that countries should formulate. Including Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and other countries, abide by UN Security Council Resolution 978: When there is sufficient evidence that the perpetrators of the Luanda problem appear in the territory of any country, that country should arrest and detain them in accordance with international law, and the courts of various countries invoke the power and responsibility of universal jurisdiction to arrest suspects wanted by the courts of the former Yugoslavia and Luanda.
Italy and Switzerland conducted criminal investigations on Argentina's criminal demands, extrajudicial lynchings and disappearances in11960s and11960s. Spanish, Belgian, French and Swiss courts sued and demanded the extradition of former Chilean dictator Pi Nuo Chet from Britain. 1On March 24th, 999, HouseofLord, equivalent to the British Supreme Court, ruled that Pi Nuo Chet could not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for what he did outside the duties of the head of state-criminal summation and conspiracy to demand criminal punishment. The British Home Secretary therefore allowed the court to decide to extradite the Spanish judge and try the above crimes. Pi Nuo Chet was not extradited, but his freedom of movement in Britain was restricted.
In February 2000, the Senegalese court invoked universal jurisdiction to prosecute the former exiled President of Chad, Hissè ne Habré, for the crime of torture during the period from 1982 to 1990. Fact reports 65438 to 0992 concluded that during the presidency of Hissè ne Habré, there were 40,000 political murders and 200,000 cases of torture in Chad.
Although Chad's domestic law does not clearly stipulate universal jurisdiction in criminal cases, Chad has signed and ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which requires the State party to use universal jurisdiction to arrest suspects who violate international law in its territory. On March 20th, 20001,HisseinHabre's lawyer protested the applicability of this universal jurisdiction in court. However, after a complaint by the United Nations Committee against Torture, Hissè ne Habré was still detained in a prison in Chad until 38 May 2006.
Judging from the cases of Pi Nuo Chet and Hissè ne Habré, before the establishment of the International Criminal Court, universal jurisdiction had been observed by many countries in the world. According to Dr. LyalS.Sunga, a professor who once participated in the investigation of the United Nations Tribunal in Luanda and taught at the University of Hong Kong, as of 20 1 1, it is believed that prosecutors can actively intervene and prosecute violators of major human rights violations in all contracting States and non-contracting States. In August, 20001,this view was also recognized by Dr. AhmedZiauddin, a professor at the Catholic University of Brussels, Belgium, at the seminar of the International Criminal Court held in Hong Kong.
Based on this, it is speculated that the possible influence of the International Criminal Court on the world in the future may come from: 1, UN Security Council resolution; 2. Human rights violations involving citizens of the State party have occurred; 3. The prosecutor took the initiative to investigate.