Skip Navigation


British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on May 3, 2005
British Journal of Criminology 2005 45(4):565-581; doi:10.1093/bjc/azi038
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/4/565    most recent
azi038v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roche, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 45:565-581 (2005)
© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Truth Commission Amnesties and the International Criminal Court

Declan Roche*

* Law Department, London School of Economics, UK, and Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. Email: d.roche{at}lse.ac.uk.

Truth commissions and the new International Criminal Court (ICC) appear to be very different mechanisms for dealing with human rights abuses: the primary purpose of a truth commission is to compile an accurate record of what happened, whereas the ICC is designed to punish individual perpetrators. This article considers how these two institutions will interact, and, more specifically, how the ICC Prosecutor will deal with perpetrators who have been granted amnesties by a truth commission in return for divulging their crimes. The ICC Statute, which contains the powers of the Court and the Prosecutor, fails to provide the ICC Prosecutor with any clear guidance on this question. On one interpretation it supports a prosecutorial policy that completely ignores amnesties, but on another, it supports the Prosecutor who decides to work cooperatively with those truth commissions that are able to demonstrate their legitimacy. Under a cooperative approach the Prosecutor would delay bringing any prosecutions until a truth commission has completed its work and then prosecute individuals from the pool who had not been granted amnesties. Such an approach could bolster the legitimacy of the ICC, by providing a principled basis for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and assist truth commissions, by encouraging more perpetrators of serious crimes to apply for amnesties, and, in the process, divulge their secrets.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 International StudiesHome page
S. R. Pattnayak
Perceived Deterrence in Crime and War: Quest for Limited Integration
International Studies, January 1, 2006; 43(2): 119 - 136.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.