Complaining to the International Criminal Court




Written by R. A. Stewart

The international Criminal Court has a set of rules and standards which is binding between sovereign states. International Law is unlike Domestic law in that it does not have a police force or supreme court. It relies on diplomacy, reciprocity, and international consensus.

It basically relies on the good will of the leaders of the world to do the right thing. 

Core Foundations

Treaties and Agreements

Formal written contracts between nations such as the Geneva Convention, The Paris Agreement, or Nato creating binding contracts between member states.

International Common Law

Unwritten rules derived from long standing practices out of a sense of obligation; diplomatic immunity, for example.

There are different branches of international law, they are:

1. Public International Law

Regulates relations between governments and international organizations in trade, conflicts, human rights, and territory.

2. International Humanitarian Law

Has expectant behaviour toward non combatants and rules of war.

3. International Human Rights Law

Has outlined obligations each state must meet in protecting human rights.

4. International Criminal Law

International criminal responsibility for war crimes and genocide.

5. Private International Law

Choice of law and jurisdiction in cross border disputes.

Note: ICC stands for International Criminal Court. 

What the ICC cannot do is:

They cannot intervene in a domestic case such as an unjust sentence, unfair trial, or corruption unless this is occurred to a civilian population.

The ICC only steps in if a national state is unwilling to investigate or prosecute.

How to submit a complaint to the ICC

If you think a crime has been committed which falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC, you can submit a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor.

The address is: 

Evidence and Discovery Management Unit,

Office of the Prosecutor,

Post Office Box 19519

2500 CM The Hague

The Netherlands

Sentences handed down by the International Criminal Court

The maximum sentence which the International Criminal Court can hand out is 30 years., though a life sentence can be handed out in exceptional cases depending on the gravity of the crime, individual culpability, and other mitigating factors.

Sentences are served in designated state facilities which have a signed enforcement agreement with the courts.

Limits on Domestic Sentencing 

International law has limits on domestic sentences. Human Rights boundaries set explicit boundaries on what sentences governments can impose:

(a) Prohibition of cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishment.

(b) Capital Punishment can only be given in the most serious of cases. It cannot be given to minors or pregnant women.

(c) Prohibition of Arbitrary Sentences requires that a person can only be punished according to a law which was in place prior to the crime being committed. Furthermore, sentences cannot be arbitrary or disproportionate to the crime.

(d) Juvenile Justice Standards: The UN Convention of the rights of the child (UNCRC) explicitly prohibits the sentencing anyone aged under 18 at the time of the offense to a life imprisonment without the possibility of release as well as capital punishment.

According to Florida law, all participants in a fatal robbery are equally guilty or murder whether they committed the actual killing or not. It does not take into account whether there was any intent involved. There is no room for any amount of discretion in this law. This is a law which needs to be addressed, so I have started a petition to change this. 

Read and sign the petition by clicking on the link below:

Click on the petition link below to sign the petition.

https://bit.ly/30KWYcA

www.floridalawchange.blogspot.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Florida’s life-without-parole law reform

Image
Florida’s life-without-parole law reform Here’s a deeper dive into specific aspects of Florida’s life-without-parole (LWOP) laws and reform efforts:   1. Juvenile LWOP Reforms After Miller and Graham Florida initially resisted retroactively applying the Supreme Court’s rulings ( Miller v. Alabama , 2012; Graham v. Florida , 2010), leading to litigation: Atwell v. State (2016) – Florida Supreme Court ruled Miller must apply retroactively. SB 7062 (2017) – Created resentencing hearings for juvenile LWOP cases, allowing judges to impose 25-to-life sentences instead of automatic LWOP. Jones v. Florida (2020) – Florida Supreme Court reversed course, ruling that Miller did not require jury unanimity for resentencing, angering reform advocates. Current Status: ~200+ juvenile lifers have been resentenced since 2017, but many remain imprisoned. Prosecutors can still seek LWOP for juveniles if they argue the defendant is "irreparably corrupt." 2. Attempts to Expand Parole or Resente...
Read more

Florida law change campaign

Image
Florida law change campaign In Florida as in many other states of America, anyone who is a party to a fatal robbery is as equally guilty of committing the murder as the person who did the actual killing. It does not make any difference whether or not there was any intention to kill the victim. If you are part of the crowd  who were involved in the death of another person then you are guilty.  What kind of a sentence do you think a person who was a party to a murder receive? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? Would you believe life without the possibility of parole. How can this be justified? If your son or daughter found themselves in this situation how would you feel? I am calling for a law change which will recognise that these folk who may have been a party to a person's death have actually committed manslaughter if even that. There needs to be a change of law which changes the definition of felony murder that significantly reduces the possibility of a defendant being unfairly ...
Read more

The Eighth Amendment Frontier: When a Legal Adult Has the Mind of a Child

Image
The Eighth Amendment Frontier: When a Legal Adult Has the Mind of a Child The sentencing of a juvenile to life without parole (LWOP) is widely regarded as one of the most profound moral and legal challenges in the American justice system. Grounded in a series of landmark Supreme Court rulings, the principle is now clear: for individuals under the age of 18, such a sentence is unconstitutional, reserved only for the "rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption." But what happens when a defendant is a legal adult in the eyes of the law, yet possesses the neurological and psychological profile of a child? This is the complex Eighth Amendment frontier at the heart of a case like Mee’s, where the rigid line of adulthood is challenged by the nuanced science of brain development. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on juvenile sentencing is built on a foundation of scientific and social understanding. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the Court abolished the juvenile...
Read more