51. In a string of cases before international courts and tribunals, these arguments were rejected. It was held that the fact that there were no prosecutions did not mean the law permitted them to take the actions that they took. This was particularly the case because the GDR was a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to life.70 52. Furthermore, even if their actions had been lawful as a matter of law in the GDR, it is likely that Germany could have relied upon the fact that shooting people under those circumstances would be considered “criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by the community of nations.” 53. A further example of where the defence’s argument of the application of retrospective criminal laws was rejected was in relation to the use of child soldiers in Sierra Leone. The Special Court set up to try war crimes arising out of the conflict in Sierra Leone during the 1990s held that by 1997, the state of customary international law was such that the recruitment of under-15 year olds engaged individual criminal responsibility.71 54. The imposition of sentences that were more severe than those applicable at the time the offence was committed is also prohibited. However, in order to determine this, the international body will look at the actual sentence imposed on the individual and whether this was within the range of available sentences at the time of the offence.72 70 Communication 960/2000, Baumgarten v Germany, 31 July 2003. Prosecutor v Sam Hinga Norman (Case SCSL – 03 –I), Appeals Chamber, 31 May 2004. 72 Communication 987/2001, Gombert v France, 18 March 2003. 71 32