143 Cf. Lord Browne-Wilkinson, R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte (1999) (no. 3) 2.W.L.R, para. 52: “How can it be for international law purposes an official function to do something which international law itself prohibits and criminalises?” Lord BrowneWilkinson went on to find that as torture is contrary to international law, Mr Pinochet could not enjoy functional immunity from jurisdiction. 144 Congo v. Belgium, ibid. note 117, para. 60 of the judgment. 145 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, pp. 326-327, with a reference to the ICTY case of Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case no. IT94-1-T of 10 August 1995). See also for a discussion of the principles of legality and related concepts: S.R. Ratner & J.S. Abrams, “Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law —Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy”, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 21-24. 146 Boulesbaa, ibid. note 28, p. 233. 147 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 133. 148 See, for example, a Belgian law, adopted in 1993 and expanded in 1999, which establishes universal jurisdiction, including universal jurisdiction in absentia, for serious international crimes. 149 In the case of The Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, ibid. note 117, the majority of the International Court of Justice does not directly address the issue of whether Belgium had jurisdiction to seek the arrest or extradition of the (then) Congolese minister of foreign affairs. In the joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans & Burgenthal, the three judges express the opinion that no rule of international law prohibits the exercise of universal criminal jurisdiction in absentia (para. 54 of the joint separate opinion). This view is shared by ad hoc Judge Van den Wyngaert in her dissenting opinion (paras. 54-55 of the dissenting opinion). However, in the separate opinion of Court President Guillaume, it is stated that, outside a few specific areas, “international law does not accept universal jurisdiction; still less does it accept universal jurisdiction in absentia.” (para. 16 of the separate opinion) 150 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 134. 151 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954): “1. For the purpose of this Convention, the term ‘stateless person’ means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.” 152 See Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Pinochet (3), ibid. note 142: “…it is clear that in all circumstances, if the Article 5 §1 states do not choose to seek extradition or to prosecute the offender, other states must do so. The purpose of the Convention was to introduce the principle aut dedere aut punire —either you extradite or you punish.” (para. 39) 153 Amnesty International, ibid. note 128, chapter 9, p. 6. 154 Amnesty International, ibid. note 128, chapter 9, p. 7. 155 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 137. 156 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 137. 157 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 133 and p. 137. 158 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 328. 159 Amnesty International, ibid. note 128, chapter 9, p. 9. 160 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 137. 161 The CAT has criticised amnesties in several countries, and recommended that they not apply to torture; see Amnesty International, ibid. note 128, chapter 14, p. 134, with references in footnote 89. 162 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 330. This issue is unrelated to the question of whether former or incumbent State representatives enjoy immunity rationae materiae or rationae personae under the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties or under international customary law. 163 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 329. 164 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 138. 165 Article 10 § 2 of the Statute of the ICTY. 166 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 332. 167 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 133. 168 Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 334. 169 See, for example, Article 15 of the Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel (1994) and Article 10 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (1979). 170 See, for example, CAT/C/SR.17, § 98; Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 352. 171 CAT/C/SR.232, § 40 and 65. 172 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 140. 173 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 141. 174 Ingelse, ibid. note 20 p. 353. 175 CAT/C/SR.34, § 39 and 72; CAT/C/SR.35, § 38; CAT/C/SR.123, § 15. 176 Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 335.