English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Many domestic courts, when prosecuting atrocities committed in their dictatorial or warring past, have been facing a real dilemma: whether to classify the facts as ordinary crimes, foreseen by the domestic legislation prior to the facts and therefore consistent with the principles of legality and non-retroactivity, or as international crimes, which do not grant the same compatibility but allow to overcome the obstacles to prosecution imposed by statutory limitations and amnesties. The paper focuses on an interpretative method developed by several Latin American tribunals to overcome this  impasse , by means of a combined application of the two criminal categories. Although this ‘dual classification of facts’ apparently solves the dilemma, it is flawed from both a methodological and substantive perspective. After scrutinising these problematic issues, the paper analyses some alternative interpretative proposals that may also allow to avoid impunity, but without impinging on fundamental principles of modern criminal law systems.

International Crimes or Ordinary Crimes? The ‘Dual Classification of the Facts’ as an Interpretive Method