66 A practical guide to the Istanbul Protocol – for lawyers Rapporteur, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/37, para 76; Addendum, Visit by the Special Rapporteur to Chile, E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.2, 4 January 1996.). However, it is generally accepted, that statutes of limitation only apply where effective remedies have been available (see for example Argentina Cases, Inter-Am. CHR 41, PP 10, 19 (1993)) and that statutes of limitation do not apply to serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that constitute crimes under international law (see Principle 6 of the UN Basic Principles on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Gross Violations of Human Rights and Serious Violations of Humanitarian Law) 149. See, for example, Article 5 of the Convention against Torture; Article 4 of the Genocide Convention; Article 27 of the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court; Robben Island guidelines, 16(b). 150. Joinet, principle 32. See also, REDRESS’ Amicus Brief on the Legality of Amnesties under International Law, http://www. redress.org/casework/AmicusCuriaeBriefSCSL1.pdf. The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that amnesties granted in respect of acts of torture are generally incompatible with the duty of States to investigate acts of torture, to guarantee freedom from such acts and to ensure that they do not occur in the future (General Comment 20, 10/3/92, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 30 at para. 15.) See also the Set of Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity produced by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex II); and Independent Study on Best Practices, Including Recommendations, to assist States in strengthening their Domestic Capacity to Combat all Aspects of Impunity, by Professor Diane Orentlicher, UN Doc. E/ CN.4/2004/88, 27 February 2004. 151. Report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2001/66,) recommendation (j). 152. World Conference on Human Rights – The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, June 1993, Section II, para 60. 153. The practice of the Committee Against Torture indicates that a significant custodial sentence is generally appropriate, Ingelse, The UN Committee against Torture: An Assessment, The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2001, p.342. 154. UN Declaration 40/34, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1985. 155. Anguelova v. Bulgaria, supra, para.139. 156. Caracazo Case, supra, para.181. 157. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on Germany’s State Party report, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/80/DEU, 15 April 2004, para.16 and by the Committee against Torture, UN Doc. CAT/C/ CR/32/7, 18 May 2004, para.4 (c); Israel’s State Party report, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ ISR, 21 August 2003, para.18, on Portugal’s State Party Report, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ PRT, 5 July 2003, para.8 (b), on Estonia’s State Party Report, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/77/ EST, 15 April 2003, para.18 and on Togo’s State Party Report, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/76/ TGO, 26 November 2002, para.12. 158. For more information on legal sanctions, immunities and amnesties as exceptions to the prosecution of alleged perpetrators see, Audit Project: A Survey of the Law and Practice of Reparation for Torture in 30 Countries Worldwide, REDRESS, April 2003. Specifically on the legality of amnesties under international law, see REDRESS’ Amicus Brief on the Legality of Amnesties under International Law, http://www.redress.org/casework/AmicusCuriaeBriefSCSL1.pdf. 159. For more information on these different types of evidence, see page 47, The Torture Reporting Handbook by Camille Giffard, Human Rights Centre, Essex University, UK, 2000. 160. Aksoy v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 18 December 1996. 161. See: Permanent Court of Arbitration, Chorzow Factory Case (Ger. V. Pol.), (1928) P.C.I.J., Sr. A, No.17, at 47 (September 13); International Court of Justice: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), Merits 1986 ICJ Report, 14, 114 (June 27); Corfu Channel Case; (UK v. Albania); Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184 ; Interpretation des traites de paix conclus avec la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et