.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
25
ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Over Alleged War Crimes
Israel is the Pariah already -
59
Ellen DeGeneres Relocates to the U.K. After Trump’s Election Win
I'm not sure even you can follow your reasoning. -
47
Thai man loses 372,000 baht to nursing student in scam wedding
did she lie to her family ? -
185
Would Donald Trump’s tariffs hurt US consumers?
You don't need to share your wild imagination here you know. Better you do it with a schrink. -
29
Best way to fly Bangkok to Philippines?
Boy oh boy George you just got caught out telling a big lie. Which means you have no credibility at all. Something I have long suspected. Bradiston pointed this out. The line was originally slated to begin partial operations by 2022. However, in April 2022, the DOTr delayed this to 2025, with full operations by 2027, as the COVID-19 pandemic hindered construction- 1
-
-
39
Russian driver crashes into Thai couple’s motorcycle, denies responsibility
Yes, a typical German Nazi -
25
ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant Over Alleged War Crimes
According to some international legal jurists who have prosecuted cases at the ICC, the warrant for the Israelis are flawed and can be challenged on the basis of non compliance with the Rome Statute under which the warrants were issued. Your attention is drawn to Article 17 of the statute. The court must first give the nation, where the accused are located, the opportunity to investigate and or prosecute. Typically, the period allowed is 60 days for a preliminary investigation. In serious crimes the investigation can take a year or more. The ICC did not present its allegations to the Ministry of Justice of Israel and did not allow for an Israeli investigation of the allegations or an opportunity to prosecute. Nor did the ICC provide a formal description of its charges. In effect the ICC did not follow its own rules. One need only read the applicable statute to see how obviously flawed the warrants are. Either the action was intentional, or an attempt to satisfy some interest groups who are needed for current ICC actions in Africa and Asia. The technical error is so flagrant that even signatories of the treaty may be compelled to ignore the warrants on the basis that the warrants were issued without cause. Article 17 Issues of admissibility 1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court. 2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable: (a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5; (b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; (c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice. 3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings. -
76
Problem with constipation at 82.
Bad decision. It's a "senna" product with a lot of side effects, especially in old age. Don't buy it!
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts