AbstractDetermining an appropriate penalty that contributes to peace and national reconciliation is a difficult task. Perpetrators of heinous crimes and their victims will almost never agree on a just sentence. Likewise, members of the perpetrator's nationality or ethnic group will usually not agree on the appropriateness of a sentence with members of the victim's nationality or ethnic group. In addition, the international and domestic military tribunals set up in the aftermath of World War II left few sentencing guidelines to help the ICTY and ICTR. Finally, the sentencing provisions in the Tribunals' Statutes do not add much guidance.
Even so, in light of their difficult task, the ICTY and ICTR have each developed a fledgling sentencing practice. This Article analyzes the sentencing practices of these Tribunals. Part II details the relevant provisions of their Statutes and Rules of Evidence and Procedure. Part HI briefly summarizes the punishment philosophy of the Tribunals and how this philosophy relates to the sentences handed down thus far. Part IV analyzes the following specific areas of the Tribunals' sentencing practices: the use of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the determination of a sentence and the elimination of a separate sentencing hearing from their procedures. The discussion of these issues reveals several areas in which the Tribunals should make adjustments to their sentencing practices.
Uploaded By : International Crimes Strategy Forum (ICSF)
Upload date : Saturday, 3 May 2014