230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 liament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.” Article 7 §1: “The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment.” Article 6 §2 has an identical wording to that of Article 7 §1 of the Statute for the Yugoslav Tribunal. Report of the International Law Commission, forty-eighth session, July 1996, A/51/10. Congo v. Belgium, ibid. note 117, para. 51 of the judgment. Cf. dissenting opinion by Judge Van den Wyngaert, who argues that there is no basis in either positive international law or customary law to conclude that an incumbent minister of foreign affairs enjoys full immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction. (para. 23 of dissenting opinion) Congo v. Belgium, ibid. note 117, para. 59 of judgment. Ibid., para. 61 of judgment. See the Preamble of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). See also Congo v. Belgium, ibid. note 117, para. 53 of judgment. Cf. Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Pinochet (3), ibid. note 142, para. 52: “How can it be for international law purposes an official function to do something which international law itself prohibits and criminalises?” Lord Browne-Wilkinson went on to find that as torture is contrary to international law Mr Pinochet could not enjoy functional immunity from jurisdiction. Congo v. Belgium, ibid. note 117, para. 60 of the judgment. See Amnesty International, ibid. note 128, chapter 9, note 26 for a list of scholarly authority for the recognition of the prohibition of torture as part of jus cogens. Ian Brownlie, “Principles of Public International Law”, 4th ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990, pp. 513514 (footnotes omitted). Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Pinochet (no. 3), ibid. note 141, para. 109. Prosecutor v. Furundija, ibid. note 24, para. 156. Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, application no. 35763/97, judgment of 21 November 2001. Ratner & Abrams, ibid. note 132, p. 212. ICC Statute, Article 7. ICC Statute, Article 7 § 2(e). ICC Statute, Article 8 § 2 (ii). ICC Statute, Preamble, Article 1, Article 17(1)(a). ICC Statute, Articles 26-29, 31-33. As of May 2002, 66 countries have already ratified the Rome Statute and many countries have initiated ratification procedures ;see http://www.iccnow.org/html/country.html for further information. ICTY Statute, Articles 1 and 8. ICTY Statute, Articles 6 and 7. ICTY Statute, Article 15. ICTY Statute, Article 2 (b). ICTY Statute, Article 5 (f). ICTR Statute, Article 1. ICTR Statute, Articles 5, 6, 8, 9. Article 7 of the ICCPR reads: “No on shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” Concluding observations CCPR/C/79/Add. 28. Case CCPR/C/65/775/1997. General comment on Art.7, nos. 7 and 20. CO CCPR/C/79/Add. 75. GC on art.7 nos. 7 and 20. Cases Com no. R 2/11 Uruguay, Com no. 74/1980 Uruguay Com no. 124/1982 Zaire, CCPR/C/49/D/366/1989 Zaire, CCPR/C/51/D322/1988 Uruguay, CCPR/C/60/702/1996 Jamaica. Com no. 139/1983 Uruguay, Com no. 176/1984 Bolivia. Com no. R 14/63 Uruguay. Com no. 161/1983 Colombia. Case CCPR/C/51/D/407/1990 Jamaica. CO CCPR/C/79/Add. 20 and Add. 46. CO CCPR/C/79/Add. 44. CO CCPR/C/79/Add. 51.