«Статус Римского статута Международного уголовного суда (Рим, 17 июля 1998 года)» [рус., англ.] (по состоянию на 15.05.2009)

Interpretative declaration:
"The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan hereby declares that nothing under its national law including the Constitution, is inconsistent with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. As such, it interprets such national law as giving effect to the full application of the Rome Statute and the exercise of relevant jurisdiction thereunder."

Liechtenstein
Declaration pursuant to article 103, paragraph 1 of the Statute:
"Pursuant to article 103, paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Principality of Liechtenstein declares its willingness to accept persons sentenced to imprisonment by the Court, for purposes of execution of the sentence, if the persons are Liechtenstein citizens or if the persons' usual residence is in the Principality of Liechtenstein".

Lithuania
Declaration:
"... AND WHEREAS, it is provided in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 103, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania is willing to accept persons, sentenced by the International Criminal Court to serve the sentence of imprisonment, if such persons are nationals of the Republic of Lithuania."

Malta
Declarations:
"Article 20, paragraphs 3 (a) and (b).
With regard to article 20 paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Malta declares that according to its constitution no person who shows that he has been tried by any competent court for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for any other criminal offence of which he could have been convicted at the trial for that offence save upon the order of a superior court made in the course of appeal or review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal; and no person shall be tried for a criminal offence if he shows that he has been pardoned for that offence.
It is presumed that under the general principles of law a trial as described in paragraphs 3 (a) and (b) of Article 20 of the Statute would be considered a nullity and would not be taken into account in the application of the above constitutional rule. However, the matter has never been the subject of any judgment before the Maltese courts.
The prerogative of mercy will only be exercised in Malta in conformity with its obligations under International law including those arising from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."

New Zealand
Declaration:
"1. The Government of New Zealand notes that the majority of the war crimes specified in article 8 of the Rome Statute, in particular those in article 8 (2) (b) (i) - (v) and 8 (2) (e) (i) - (iv) (which relate to various kinds of attacks on civilian targets), make no reference to the type of the weapons employed to commit the particular crime. The Government of New Zealand recalls that the fundamental principle that underpins international humanitarian law is to mitigate and circumscribe the cruelty of war for humanitarian reasons and that, rather than being limited to weaponry of an earlier time, this branch of law has evolved, and continues to evolve, to meet contemporary circumstances. Accordingly, it is the view of the Government of New Zealand that it would be inconsistent with principles of international humanitarian law to purpot to limit the scope of article 8, in particular article 8 (2) (b), to events that involve conventional weapons only.
2. The Government of New Zealand finds support for its view in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) and draws attention to paragraph 86, in particular, where the Court stated that the conclusion that humanitarian law did not apply to such weapons "would be incompatible with the intrinsica



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet