1 1This article is an amended version of an article published in the Michigan State Journal of International Law 2005, 13 Mich. St. J. Int'l L. 179 (2005), and is reproduced here by kind permission of the publisher.
1 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, art. 6, 78 U.N.T.S. 277 (entered into force Jan. 12, 1951) [here- inafter Genocide Convention]. 2 See Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature Feb. 4, 1985, G.A. Res. 39/46, U.N. GAOR, 39th Sess., Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc. A/39/51, at 197 (1984), reprinted in 23 I.L.M. 1027 (1984) [hereinafter Torture Conven- tion]. 3 For this issue see e.g. Leila Nadya Sadat, International Criminal Law and Alternative Modes of Redress, in INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW AND THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, 159 (An- dreas Zimmermann ed. 2001). 4 Rodriguez v. Uruguay, Communication No. 322/1988, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 51" Sess., para. 8.3, UN Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988 (1994). 5 Id. para. 8.5.
6 Case 11.481, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/ser.L/V/II.106, doc. 3 rev. 671, para 3 (1999), available at http://www.cidh.org/casos/99.eng.htm. 7 See generally Thomas Buergenthal, The United Nations Truth Commission for El Salvador, 27 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 497 (1994) (Discussing the UN Truth Commission for El Salvador. This Commission had the primary task of investigating and elaborating a public report. The decision whether to prosecute was left to the State). 8 See generally Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 (July 26, 1995), available at http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/legal/act9534.htm (calling for the establishment of the South African Truth and Reconcilia- tion Commission). See also Kader Asmal, Truth, Reconciliation and Justice: The South African Experience in Perspective, 63 MOD. L. REv. 1 (2000); John Dugard, Reconciliation and Justice: The South African Experience, in THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS 399 (Burns H. Weston & Stephen P. Marks eds. 1999); Lyn Graybill, To Punish or Pardon: A Comparison of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, HUM. RTS. REV., July- Sept. 2001, at 3; Gerhard Werle, Without Truth, No Reconciliation: The South African Rechtsstaat and the Apartheid Past, 29 VERFASSUNG UND RECHT IN UBERSEE 5 (1996). 9 See S.C. Res. 827, U.N. SCOR, 48th Sess., U.N. Doc. S/Res/827 (1993), re- printed in 32 1.L.M. 1203 (1993). 10 See S.C. Res. 955, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/Res/955 (1994). 11 See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/Conf.183/9 (July 17, 1998), reprinted in 37 1.L.M. 999 (1998).
12 A proposal to include a provision on amnesties was not adopted. See Re- port of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, U.N. GAOR, 50th Sess., Supp. No. 22, at 9, U.N. Doc. A/50/22 (1995); Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, U.N. GAOR, 51" Sess., Supp. No. 22, at 37, 40, U.N. Doc. A/51/22 (1996). 13 See Under Secretary for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, Remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (May 6, 2002) (stating the reasons the U.S. decided not to become a party to the Rome Statute), avail- able at http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm. See generally Letter from John R. Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, to Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General (May 6, 2002) (containing the U.S. rejection of the Rome Statute), available at http://www.state.gov/ r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm. �4 S.C. Res. 1529, U.N. SCOR, 59th Sess., 49199" mtg., U.N. Doc. S/RES/1529 (2004).
15 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A, U.N. GAOR, 21" Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 52, art. 2(3), U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 I.L.M. 368 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976) [hereinafter ICCPR]; American Convention on Human Rights, Nov 22, 1969, art. 25, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123, reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82, doc.6 rev 1, at 25 (1992); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov 4, 1950, art. 13, 213 U.N.T.S. 222, as amended by Protocol Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 11. I6 See Bleier v Uruguay, Communication No. R.7/30, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., Supp. No. 40, at 130, para. 15, U.N. Doc. A/37/40 (1982); Barbato v Uruguay, Communication No. 84/1981, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, at 112, para. 11 (1990); Quinteros v. Uruguay, Communication No. 107/1981, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, at 143, para. 15 (1983); Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, Communication No. 540/1993, UN Doc. CCPR/C/56/D/540/1993, para 10 (1996). 1� See U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 52d Sess., 1365'h mtg. at 12, para. 54, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/SR.1365 (1994); U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 5the Sess. at 5, para. 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.65 (1996). See also Juan E. Mendez, Accountability for Past Abuses, 19 HUM. RTS. Q. 255 (1997); Anja Seibert-Fohr, The Fight against Impunity under the Interna-
tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 6 MAX PLANCK Y.B. U.N. L. 301, 325 (2002). 18 Torture Convention, supra note 2, art. 4. 19 Genocide Covention, supra note 1, art 1. 20 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Nov. 30, 1973, art. 4, 1015 U.N.T.S. 243. 21 See IMPUNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRAC- TICE (Naomi Roht-Arriaza ed., 1995). For the issue whether amnesties are admissible under international law, see Diane F. Orentlicher, Settling Ac- counts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime, 100 Yale L.J. 2537 (1991); REINING IN IMPUNITY FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SIRACUSA CONFERENCE, 17-21 SEPTEMBER 1998 (Christopher C. Joyner ed., 1998); Madeline H. Morris, International Guidelines Against Impunity: Facilitating Accountability, LAW & CON- TEMP. PROBS., Autumn 1996, at 29; Michael Scharf, The Letter of the Law: The Scope of the International Legal Obligation to Prosecute Human Rights Crimes, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Autumn 1996, at 41; Richard J. Goldstone, Advancing the Cause of Human Rights: The Need for Justice and Accountability, in REALIZING HUMAN RIGHTS: MOVING FROM INSPI- RATION TO IMPACT 195 (Samantha Power & Graham Allison eds., 2000); ANGELIKA SCHLUNCK, AMNESTY VERSUS ACCOUNTABILITY: THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION DEALING WITH GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN IN- TERNAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS (2000); William W Burke- White, Reframing Impunity: Applying Liberal International Law Theory to an Analysis of Amnesty Legislation, 42 HARV. INT'L L.J. 467 (2001); John Dugard, Dealing With Crimes of a Past Regime. Is Amnesty Still an Op- tion?, 12 LEIDEN J. INT'L L. 1001 (1999); Jessica Gavron, Amnesties in the Light of Developments in International Law and the Establishment of the International Criminal Court, 51 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 91 (2002); ANDREAS O'SHEA, AMNESTY FOR CRIME IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE (2002).
22 Human Rights in Peace Negotiations, 18 HUM. RTS. Q. 249 (1996). 23 This argument was put forward by Peru, but rejected by the Commission. See Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.LN/II.106, doc. 59 rev, para. 230 (2000); see generally Rodriguez v Uruguay, supra note 4. 24 See discussion infra Parts II.C, III. 25 ICCPR, supra note 15, art. 9. zb Id. art. 14. z� Id. art. 10. 28 Anja Seibert-Fohr, The Relevance of International Human Rights Stan- dards for Prosecuting Terrorists, in TERRORISM AS A CHALLENGE FOR NA- TIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: SECURITY VERSUS LIBERTY? 125, 161-2 (Walter/Voneky/Roben/Schorkopf eds., 2004).
29 Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Ser. C, No. 4, para 166 (1988). For later pronouncements, see Case 11.725, Inter-Am. C.H.R, OEA/ser.L./V/IL106, doc. 3. rev. 494, para 90 (1999); Bamaca Velasquez Case, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., para. 129 (2000), available at http://www. corteidh.or.cr/seriec_ing/index.html. 30 See e.g. Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, Communication No. 563/1993, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 555" Sess., para 8.2, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993 (1995); Arhuacos v. Colombia, U.N. GAOR Hum. Rts. Comm., 52d Sess., Supp. No. 40, at 171, para. 8.2, U.N. Doc. A/52/40 (1999); General Comment No. 31 on Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 80'11 Sess., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6, para 18 (2004). See also Carla Edelenbos, Hu-
man Rights Violations: A Duty to Prosecute?, LEIDEN J. INT'L L., No. 2, at 5 (1994). 31 See Calvelli v Italy, App. No. 32967/96, para. 51 (2002), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/; Kiliq v Turkey, App. No. 22492/93, para. 62 (2000), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/; M.C. v. Bulgaria, App. No. 39272/98, para. 150 (2004), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/; VO v. France, App. No. 53924/00, para 90 (2004), available at http://www. echr.coe.int/; Oneryildiz v Turkey, App. No. 48939/99, paras. 91-95 (2004), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/ 32 See e.g. Case 11.725, supra note 29, para. 90; Case 10.480, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L./V/II.95 doc. 7 rev. 531, para. 119 (1999). 33 See e.g. Barbato v. Uruguay, supra note 16; Quinteros v Uruguay, supra note 16; Concluding Observation of the Human Rights Committee: Suri- name, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 80t' Sess., U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/80/SUR (2004); Muiyo v. Zaire, Communication No. 194/1985, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, at 219, para. 11 (1990). 34 Villagran Morales et al. Case, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (1999), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriecpdf ing/seriec_63 ing.pdf.
35 Id. para. 228. 36 Id. para 231. 3� Id. para. 232. 38 Id. para. 233. 39 See Blake Case, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., para. 97 (1998) (recognizing the right of a victim's family members to have the disappearance and death effective investigated by the authorities), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/ seriecpdf ing/seriec_36 ing.pdf; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., para. 155 (1998), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/ seriecpdUng/seriec_37 _ing.pdf. 40 For example, the Human Rights Committee have made a number of pro- nouncements. Bautista, supra note 30, para 8.6; Vicente v. Colombia, Communication No. 612/1995, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., para. 8.8, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/60/D/612/1995 (1997); General Comment No. 31, supra note 30. For the recent jurisprudence by the European Court of Human Rights, see M.C. v Bulgaria, supra note 31, para 201; VO v France, supra note 31, para 90; Oneryildiz v. Turkey, supra note 31, paras. 91-95.
41 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1985-1986, OEA/Ser.L/V/11.68, doc.8 rev 1, ch. 5 (1986), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/85.86eng/toc.htm. For an analysis of the Commission's statements with respect to amnesties, see Juliane Kokott, No Impunity for Human Rights Violations in the Americas, 14 HUM. RTS. L.J. 153 (1993); Douglass Cassel, Lessons from the Americas: Guidelines for International Response to Amnesties for Atrorities, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Autumn 1996, at 197; Ellen Lutz, Responses to Amnesties by the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, in THE INTER- AMERICAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS 345 (David J. Harris & Stephen Livingstone eds., 1998). 42 Annual Report, supra note 41. 43 Id.
44 Barrios Altos Case, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., paras. 41-44 (2001), available at http://w-ww.corteidh.or.cr/seriecpdLing/scriec-75-ing.pdf. 45 Id. para. 4 (Trindade, J., concurring). 46 Id. 47 See General Comment No. 20 on Article 7 of the Covenant, para 15, in Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. GAOR, at 33, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev (1994). 48 Seibert-Fohr, supra note 17, at 343. 49 General Comment No. 31, supra note 30. 50 See Rodriguez v. Uruguay, supra note 4, para 6.3; Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Argentina, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 70`" Sess., para. 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/70/ARG (2000); Con- cluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Brazil, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., para. 20, U.N. Doc. DDPR/C/79/Add.66 (1996); Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Gua- temala, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., para. 26, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.63 (1996); Concluding Observations by the Human Rights Committee: Colombia, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., para. 32, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.75 (1997); Comments of the Human Rights
Committee: Haiti, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., para. 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.49 (1995). See also Seibert-Fohr, supra note 17, at 343-44. s1 Report of the Committee Against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 55`" Sess., Supp. 44, para. 59(g), U.N. Doc. A/55/44 (2000). 5z Id. para. 69 (c) (1999). 53 Preliminary Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Peru, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 577" Sess., para. 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.67 (1996). See also Comments of the Human Rights Committee: Yemen, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., para. 11, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.51 (1995); Comments of the Human Rights Committee: Paraguay, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., para. 9, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.48 (1995).
54 For the situation in Argentina and the most recent judicial developments see Maria Fernanda Perez Solla, Enforced Disappearances before Argentin- ean Tribunals: New Developments in an Endless Fight for Justice, 19 S. AFR. J. HUM. RTS. 691 (2003). Those amnesties enacted are limited in scope pro- viding for an exception depending on the offences at issue. In the case of Guatemala the amnesty called for in the peace agreement and passed in De- cember 1996 contains an exception for very serious crimes. For this issue see Juan E. Mendez, The Right to Truth, in Reining in Impunity for interna- tional Crimes and Serious Violations of Fundamental Human Rights: Pro- ceedings of the Siracusa Conference 17-21 September 1998, 255, 273 (Christopher C. Joyner ed., 1998); Christian Tomuschat, The Duty to Prosecute International Crimes Committed by Individuals, in TRADITION UND WELTOFFENHEIT DES RECHTS: FESTSCHRIFT fur HELMUT STEINBER- GER 315, 346 (Hans-Joachim Cremer, Thomas Giegerich, Dagmar Richter, Andreas Zimmermann eds., 2002). 55 See Independent Study on Best Practices, Including Recommendations, to Assist States in Strengthening Their Domestic Capacity to Combat All As- pects of Impunity: Professor Diane Orentlicher, U.N. ESCOR, 60'h Sess., Agenda Item 17, para. 30, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2004/88 (2004). See also CONSTITUCI6N POLFTICA DE LA REPUBLIC DEL ECUADOR [Constitution] art. 23 (prohibiting enactment of amnesty legislation or granting pardons for human rights violations). 56 S.C. Res. 955, supra note 10 (emphasis added). 5� S.C. Res. 1315, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000).
58 William A. Schabas, The Relationship Between Truth Commissions and In- ternational Courts: The Case of Sierra Leone, 25 HUM. RTS. Q. 1035, 1066 (2003). For the different options in times of transition see LEKHA SRIRAM, CONFRONTING PAST HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS: JUSTICE VS PEACE IN TIMES OF TRANSITION (2004). 59 Instead of considering truth commissions to be substitutes for the prosecu- tion of human rights offenders, the Inter-American institutions have in- stead sought to use them in addition to investigations and prosecutions by the judiciary in recent years. See e.g. Case 10.488, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.LN/IL106, doc. 3 rev., paras. 229-32 (1999). Mendez observed that the right to truth and the right to justice are no longer considered to be alternatives. Mendez, supra note 17, at 267-69. 60 The Commission on the Truth for El Salvador was established in 1992 pur- suant to the Salvadoran Peace Accord. For a detailed account, see Buergen- that, supra note 7.
61 Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador. From Madness to Hope, U.N. SCOR, at 178, U.N. Doc. S/25500 (1993). 62 Id. at 178-79. 63 See Draft Agreement Between the United Nations and the Royal Govern- ment of Cambodia, Concerning the Prosecution Under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea (Mar. 17, 2003), G.A. Res. 57/228, U.N. Doc. A/RES/57/228 B, Annex. Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the period of Democratic Kampuchea http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/seasia/ doc/krlaw.html. 64 Id. art. 9. Such a selective approach was also advocated by Orentlicher, su- pra note 21. bs See Agreement Between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone (Jan. 16, 2002), reprinted in Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, U.N. SCOR, at 15, U.N. Doc. S/2000/915 (2000); see also S.C. Res. 1315, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000) (requesting the negotiation of an agreement to establish the Special Court for Sierra Leone).
66 See Briefing Paper, Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice Special Task Force, Relationship Between the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Jan. 2002), available at http://www.specialcourt.org/documents/PlanningMission/BriefingPapers/ TRC_SpCt.html. 67 Peace Agreement Between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revo- lutionary United Front of Sierra Leone, art. 9 (June 3, 1999), available at http://www.sierra-leone.org/lomeaccord.html. 68 See S.C. Res. 1315, supra note 65, at 1. See also M. Goldmann, in this Vol- ume. 69 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, art. 10, available at http://www.sc-sl.org/scsl-statute.html. 70 Special Court for Sierra Leone, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Kallon and Kamara, Case Nos SCSL-2004-15-AR 72 (E), SCSL-2004-16-AR 72 (E), Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction: Lome Accord Amnesty, Decision of 13 March 2004, para. 71, available at http://www.sc-sl.org/Documents/ SCSL-04-14-PT-035-I.pdf Please note that the Court did not hold that the amnesty was in violation of international law. Instead, it explained that in- ternational and foreign domestic courts are not prevented by such amnes- ties from exercising criminal jurisdiction. Id. paras 71-71. The Court's holding which was based on the concept of universal jurisdiction, however, is not persuasive. See generally Antonio Cassese, The Special Court and In- ternational Law: The Derision Concerning the Lome Agreement Amnesty, 2 J Int Criminal Justice 1130 (2004).
�l See S.C. Res. 827, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993); S.C. Res. 955, U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994). 72 See Rome Statute, supra note 11, pmbl. �3 For this issue, see Allison Marston Danner, Enhanczng the Legitimacy and Accountability of Prosecutorial Discretion at the International Criminal Court, 97 Atvt. J. INT'L L. 510 (2003). 74 For the issue of how the discretion should be exercised in case of an am- nesty, see Anja Seibert-Fohr, The Relevance of the Rome Statute of the In- ternational Criminal Court for Amnesties and Truth Commissions, 7 MAX PLArrCx YB. U.N. L. 553, 580-82 (2003). �5 Rome Statute, supra note 11, art. 53(l)(c).
�6 Id. art. 53(3). 77 This follows from the admissibility provision of the Rome Statute. Id. art. 17. For a detailed analysis of this issue, see Seibert-Fohr, supra note 74. Other authors rely on articles 15 and 53. See Dugard, supra note 21, at 1014; Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Amnesty and the International Criminal Court, in INTERNATIONAL CRIMES, PEACE, AND HUMAN RIGHTS: THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, 77, 81 (Dinah Shelton ed. 2000); Richard J. Goldstone & Nicole Fritz, 'In the Interests of Justice' and Independent Referral: The ICC Prosecutor's Unprecedented Powers, 13 LEIDEN J. INT'L L. 655, 662 (2000). See also Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, The International Criminal Court and National Amnesty Laws, 93 AM. SOC'Y INT'L L. PROC. 65 (1999); Michael Scharf, The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, 32 CORNELL INT'L L.J. 507 (1999). 78 Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, available at http://www.cpa- iraq.org/human_rights/Statute.htm.See Ilias Bantekas, The Iraqi Special Tribunal for Crimes against Humanity, 54 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 237-253 (2005).
79 For an early critique see e.g. M. Cherif Bassiouni, Commentary on the Spe- cial Tribunal, Chicago Tribune, 21 December 2003. See also Danilo Zolo, The Iraqi Special Tribunal- Back to the Nuremberg Paradigm? 2 Journal of Int'l Crim. Justice 313-318 (2004); Salvatore Zappala, The Iraqi Special Tri- bunal's Draft Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 2 Journal of Int'l Crim. Justice 855-865 (2004). 80 For the question of mixed tribunal see Fredrick Egona-Ntende, Justice af ter Conflict: Challenges Facing `Hybrid' Courts: National Tribunals with International Participation, Journal of International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict 1/2005, 24-29. 81 Michael Scharf, Is It International Enough? A Critique of the Iraqi Special Tribunal in Light of the Goals of International Justice, 2 Journal of Int'l Crim. Justice 330-337 (2004); Jose E. Alvarez, Trying Hussein: Between Hubris and Hegemony, 2 Journal of Int'l Crim. Justice 319, 326 (2004); Beth K. Dougherty, Victims' justice, victors' justice- Iraq's flawed tribunal, 11 Middle East policy 61-74 (2004). 82 Yuval Shany, Does One Size Fit All? Reading the Jurisdictional Provisions of the New Iraqi Special Tribunal Statute in the Light of the Statutes of In- ternaitonal Criminal Tribunals, 2 Journal of Int'l Crim. Justice 338, 341- 342 (2004).
83 For the question whether genocide may be amnestied, see Tomuschat, su- pra note 54, at 347. 84 For example, the amnesty called for in Guatemala's peace agreement and passed in December 1996 contains an exception for very serious crimes. See Mendez, supra note 54.