Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR

<p>One of the fundamental principles of justice is consistency - like cases should be treated alike. Consistency of sentencing can be approached on several levels – the two fundamental ones being consistency in approach and consistency in outcome. The former refers to a principled way...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Barbora Hola
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Amsterdam Law Forum 2012
Materias:	International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda consistency sentencing Law K
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/5b9c86beb5424193b5232a065b407ca6
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:5b9c86beb5424193b5232a065b407ca6
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:5b9c86beb5424193b5232a065b407ca62021-12-02T06:29:56ZSentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR1876-8156https://doaj.org/article/5b9c86beb5424193b5232a065b407ca62012-12-01T00:00:00Zhttp://ojs.ubvu.vu.nl/alf/article/view/293https://doaj.org/toc/1876-8156<p>One of the fundamental principles of justice is consistency - like cases should be treated alike. Consistency of sentencing can be approached on several levels – the two fundamental ones being consistency in approach and consistency in outcome. The former refers to a principled way of sentence determination while the latter concerns the actual sentencing outcomes in a sense of numerical comparisons of sentence length across individual cases. This article analyses ‘consistency in approach’ of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR). The conclusions demonstrate that on a general level, a set of sentencing principles is consistently emphasised in the ICTY and ICTR cases. The inconsistencies and disparities across cases are, however, identified with respect to particularities, such as what factors are relevant for the gravity assessment and whether a particular mitigating/aggravating factor indeed aggravates/mitigates the sentence in a particular case. The main problem of the ICTY and ICTR judges’ sentencing reasoning seems to be a lack of transparency and clarity. On the basis of a critical examination of the ICTY and ICTR case law the article offers suggestions on how to develop more transparent and understandable sentencing practices.</p>Barbora HolaAmsterdam Law ForumarticleInternational Criminal Tribunal for the Former YugoslaviaInternational Criminal Tribunal for RwandaconsistencysentencingLawKENAmsterdam Law Forum, Vol 4, Iss 4, Pp 3-24 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda consistency sentencing Law K
spellingShingle	International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda consistency sentencing Law K Barbora Hola Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR
description	<p>One of the fundamental principles of justice is consistency - like cases should be treated alike. Consistency of sentencing can be approached on several levels – the two fundamental ones being consistency in approach and consistency in outcome. The former refers to a principled way of sentence determination while the latter concerns the actual sentencing outcomes in a sense of numerical comparisons of sentence length across individual cases. This article analyses ‘consistency in approach’ of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR). The conclusions demonstrate that on a general level, a set of sentencing principles is consistently emphasised in the ICTY and ICTR cases. The inconsistencies and disparities across cases are, however, identified with respect to particularities, such as what factors are relevant for the gravity assessment and whether a particular mitigating/aggravating factor indeed aggravates/mitigates the sentence in a particular case. The main problem of the ICTY and ICTR judges’ sentencing reasoning seems to be a lack of transparency and clarity. On the basis of a critical examination of the ICTY and ICTR case law the article offers suggestions on how to develop more transparent and understandable sentencing practices.</p>
format	article
author	Barbora Hola
author_facet	Barbora Hola
author_sort	Barbora Hola
title	Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR
title_short	Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR
title_full	Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR
title_fullStr	Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR
title_full_unstemmed	Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR
title_sort	sentencing of international crimes at the icty and ictr
publisher	Amsterdam Law Forum
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/5b9c86beb5424193b5232a065b407ca6
work_keys_str_mv	AT barborahola sentencingofinternationalcrimesattheictyandictr
_version_	1718399870696423424

Sentencing of International Crimes at the ICTY and ICTR

Ejemplares similares