favour of applying the death penalty in the most extreme cases. The number of States with the death penalty is only slightly fewer than those that do not have a death penalty. There is no opportunity for rehabilitation whatsoever where the death penalty is imposed. Thus a life sentence with a possibility of reduction to 25 years is a reasonable compromise between the death penalty and a maximum prison sentence of 30 years. States should also remember that article 80 specifically states that the Statute does not affect the application by States of penalties prescribed by their national law, nor does it affect the law of States which do not provide for penalties prescribed in the Statute. States Parties do not have to adopt the same penalties for similar offences in their jurisdiction, nor will they be required to enforce any sentences of imprisonment unless they volunteer to do so. At that stage, they may also specify conditions on the acceptance of sentenced persons, including a condition that they do not have to enforce a sentence of life imprisonment (article 106 (2)). Therefore, States Parties with constitutional provisions prohibiting the imposition of a life sentence may only need to make an exception allowing them to surrender persons to the ICC, despite the fact that such persons may be sentenced to life imprisonment.
Obligations
States Parties to the Statute are required to surrender an accused to the ICC when requested, even if this person may be sentenced to life imprisonment.
In keeping with article 80 and the principle of complementarity, however, when States Parties are themselves prosecuting the perpetrator of a crime listed under the Statute, they are not obliged to impose a life sentence.
Implementation
For many States, the power of the ICC to impose a life sentence will not necessitate the adoption of any particular legislative measures. However, some States have a constitution that explicitly prohibits the extradition of a person to a State where this sentence is imposed, or that declares that a life sentence constitutes cruel punishment. These States have the choice between two options:
a) Establish clearly, in the Act implementing the Statute, the distinction between extraditing a person to another State and surrendering a person to the ICC.
Some States may be able to make a distinction in their laws between extraditing a person to another State and surrendering a person to the ICC, which would allow them to surrender persons to the ICC even though there is a restriction on "extraditing" persons to tribunals that impose sentences of life imprisonment. This would allow them to maintain the prohibition on extraditing a person to some foreign tribunals, while not interfering with their ability to co-operate fully with the ICC.
b) Amend the constitution
The amendment could be minor, aiming only to include an exception to the constitutional principle. It could specify that a life sentence imposed by the ICC in conformity with the Rome Statute for one of the crimes listed under the Statute is not in violation of the Constitution. It should also mention that the State can surrender an accused person to the ICC despite the possibility of the life sentence being imposed. The constitutional amendment could also make mention of the fact that the ICC may reduce the sentence after 25 years, so there is a possibility for rehabilitation.
The advantage of a constitutional amendment that refers specifically to the ICC is that it erases any possibility of normative conflict. It ensures that national courts will make rulings in conformity with the legal obligations issuing from the Rome Statute.
The right to trial by jury
Description
Some constitutions provide for the right to trial by jury. Under article 39(2)(b), persons
> 1 2 3 ... 258 259 260 ... 303 304 305