Our authors

Our Books
More than 865 authors
from all continents

Historical Origins of International Criminal Law
Historical Origins of
International Criminal Law

pficl
Philosophical Foundations of
International Criminal Law

Policy Brief Series

pbs
Concise policy briefs on policy challenges in international law

Quality Control
An online symposium

Our Chinese and Indian authors

li-singh
TOAEP has published more than 80 Chinese and Indian authors

atonement
Art and the ‘politics
of reconciliation’

Integrity in international justice
Symposium on integrity
in international justice

HomeIcon  FilmIcon  FilmIcon  CILRAP Circulation List TwitterTwitter PDFIcon

Table of contents

6. The gravity of the conduct was such that it was in violation of fundamental rules of international law.

6.1. The gravity of the conduct in question.

6.2. Evidence of conduct violating the fundamental rules of international law.

6.2.1. Evidence that the conduct violated fundamental rules of international, but not necessarily domestic, law.

6.2.2. Evidence of a violation of the fundamental rules of international law.

P.8. Evidence that detention was arbitrary.

P.8.1. Evidence that detention was arbitrary because of a lack of legal basis.

P.8.2. Evidence that detention was arbitrary because of a lack of due process.

P.8.3. Evidence that detention was arbitrary because victims were detained collectively based on certain personal characteristics.

P.8.4. Evidence that detention was arbitrary because victims were detained solely because of their prominent position.

P.8.5. Evidence that detention was arbitrary because of a failur to consider whether victims were civilians or not.

P.9. Evidence that detention resulted from the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms.

P.10. Evidence that detention was not absolutely necessary.

P.10.1. Evidence that victims did not pose a security threat to the detaining forces.

P.10.2. Evidence that victims were detained solely because they were nationals of an enemy power or men of military age.

P.10.3. Evidence that victims had not participated in military activities.

P.10.4. Evidence that victims were civilians.

P.10.5. Evidence that perpetrators had no reason to suspect that victims had committed offenses.

P.10.6. Evidence of the failure to judge necessity on a case-by-case basis.

P.10.7. Evidence that victims were not detained for their own safety.

P.10.8. Not sufficient: Evidence that the perpetrator took some time to decide whether detention was necessary.

P.10.9. Not sufficient: Evidence that liberty was restricted by processes established by law.

P.10.10. Exculpatory evidence: evidence that victims had engaged in espionage, sabotage, or intelligence with the enemy.

P.11. Evidence that the perpetrator failed to provide initial due process of law.

P.11.1. Evidence of a failure to inform victims of the reason for their detention.

P.11.2. Evidence of inconsistent search and interrogation techniques.

P.11.3. Evidence of interrogations under forced or coercive circumstances.

P.11.4. Evidence of a failure to inform victims of their procedural rights.

P.11.5. Evidence of a failure to inform victims of the possibilities for release.

P.11.6. Evidence of a failure to charge, try or convict victims of a crime.

P.11.7. Evidence of a failure to provide a fair trial.

P.11.8. Evidence of a failure to follow procedures prescribed for legally-detained persons.

P.12. Evidence that the perpetrator failed to provide due process of law subsequent to the initial detention.

P.12.1. Evidence that an initially-lawful detention at any point became unlawful.

P.12.2. Evidence of a failure to reconsider detention as soon as possible using a court or administrative board.

P.12.3. Evidence that an administrative board investigating detention had ceased to function.

P.12.4. Evidence that an administrative board investigating detention had no actual power.

P.12.5. Evidence of a failure to reconsider detention twice per year.

P.12.6. Evidence of continued detention after establishing no reason for detention.

P.13. Evidence of confinement under inhumane conditions.

P.13.1. Evidence that conditions infringed the fundamental right of persons to be treated with humanity.

P.13.2. Evidence that victims were used as hostages.

P.13.3. Evidence that victims were used as human shields.

P.13.4. Evidence that victims were beaten, injured, or subjected to other acts of physical violence.

P.13.5. Evidence that victims were kept in poor conditions of space, nutrition, or hygiene.

P.13.6. Evidence that victims were forced to dig trenches.

Lexsitus

Lexsitus logo

CILRAP Film
More than 530 films
freely and immediately available

CMN Knowledge Hub

CMN Knowledge Hub
Online services to help
your work and research

CILRAP Conversations

Our Books
CILRAP Conversations
on World Order

M.C. Bassiouni Justice Award

M.C. Bassiouni Justice Award

CILRAP Podcast

CILRAP Podcast

Our Books
An online symposium

Power in international justice
Symposium on power
in international justice

Interviewing
A virtual symposium