1. No category

th
6
Legal
United Nations General Assembly 6th Legal Committee
topics:
 Capital Punishment
 Universal Jurisdiction
Chaired by the Honorable
Jenny Hudson, Chris Brennan, and Victoria Henson
S i n c e
HBHS
April 25th, 2015
1 9 7 8
Novice
hbhsmun.webs.com
Huntington Beach High School Model United Nations
General Assembly – 6th Legal
April 25th, 2015
Welcome to United Nations GA 4th SPD!
Hi! My name is Jenny Hudson and I am so excited to be one of your chairs for your
HBHS Novice Conference! I am currently a Junior at Huntington and therefore this is my third
year in MUN. Besides MUN, I am very involved in the APA (Academy for the Performing Arts)
program here as a Musical Theatre major and a Dance minor. I’m a pretty busy person but also
love devoting a lot of time to my church and my classes in school. Being in MUN has been an
incredible experience for me that has really challenged me to grow as a student, speaker, and a
person. Being immersed in so many different topics has opened my eyes to so many issues
around the world that need our time and energy. Delegates, it is my hope that you will take this
conference seriously and compromise to create solutions that really could make a difference.
Also, the more you commit to these topics, the more you will truly care about what is happening
in committee and then improve as an MUNer. If you have any questions at all, feel free to shoot
us a message through the committee email. We are here to help! Best of luck, Delegates!
Hello, my name is Chris Brennan and I will be one of your chairs for the Huntington
Beach High School Novice Conference. I am currently a senior at HBHS and in my fourth year
of the Model United Nations program. When I am not in school, I love to spend my free time
playing and watching soccer. I am on the varsity soccer team here at Huntington and, in
addition, I play on a club team, as well. Other than sports, I spend a large majority of my time in
the mountains either snowboarding, backpacking, or simply just enjoying the outdoors. Joining
the Model United Nations program my freshman year was definitely one of my wisest choices in
high school. I know its cliché saying this; however, without MUN I don’t think I would be nearly
as passionate about of the importance of global harmony. In this committee, I hope to enjoy a
productive wholesome debate; which I am sure you will all provide. Have fun researching
delegates and good luck!
Hello Delegates! I’m Victoria Henson and I am more than excited to be your chair for this
MUN conference! I am currently a sophomore here at HBHS and it is my second year in the
MUN program. Alongside MUN, I greatly enjoy being a part of the swim team here at HBHS as
well as my club swim team at Golden West; I am also a proud participant in girl scouts. Most of
my time is taken up by school or swim, but in my free time I am usually reading, at the beach, or
watching Netflix. Choosing to be a part of MUN was probably one of the best decisions I have
ever made; this program has influenced me in so many ways. I now have the desire and drive to
learn and understand this world’s most complex and complicated problems and issues; this
program enables all of its participants to grow and mature their speaking and researching skills,
which is beneficial for the future. Delegates, the biggest advice I could give you, is to know your
research, and understand each topic thoroughly. Also please take this conference as seriously
as possible. I really hope to hear unique and innovative ideas from you all! If there are any
questions feel free to e-mail us, and we will be more than happy to assist you! Good luck, and
happy researching!
Position Papers must be submitted to your Dais’s central email no later than 11:59 PM on
April 19th, 2015 to be considered for a Research Award. Research Awards will be presented
during committee; please be sure to follow the HBHSMUN Position Paper format available on
our website. Your Dais’s central email is: [email protected]
2
1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I hbhsmun.webs.com I [email protected]
General Assembly – 6th Legal
April 25th, 2015
I. Capital Punishment
Topic Background
hundred fifty B.C. By 900 A.D. Britain
regularly used capital punishment, often
accompanying it with torture to extract
confessions. After brutal killing sprees by
many monarchs, especially Henry VIII who
killed over 72,000 citizens, the death
penalty finally subsided in Britain between
1832-1837. The majority of Europe followed
suit throughout the twentieth century as
many countries switched to more
democratic forms of government.
Today, two-thirds of all countries
have halted the death penalty either by law
or practiceiv. Yet in 2012, 18,750 people
were sentenced to death, and in 2013, 778
executions were actually carried out by 22
countriesv. China is known to be one of the
largest perpetrators of the death penalty,
but due to their secrecy, organizations like
Amnesty International can only hypothesize
that thousands of its citizens are executed
every year. Excluding this uncertainty in
China, 80% of all executions are known to
take place in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
The countries with the largest number of
recorded executions in 2013 are as
followed: Iran with 369 executions, Iraq with
169 executions, Saudi Arabia with 79
executions, and the United States with 39
executionsvi. As of 2014, 98 countries had
officially banned capital punishmentvii.
These are classified as abolitionist countries
and can be found in every block with
examples such as Argentina, the
Netherlands, Uzbekistan, Philippines and
Rwandaviii. There are also several countries
which are abolitionist by practice, meaning
they have not practiced the death penalty in
over ten years, including Algeria, Congo,
Russia, and South Korea. Finally, there are
many retentionist countries who continue to
use capital punishment for regular crimes
and/or extreme crimes. These are countries
such as Afghanistan, Japan, China, Nigeria,
and Syria. Currently, there are also
The usage of capital punishment
presents itself as a greatly debated and
controversial topic due to the increasingly
emphasized value of human rights over the
past few centuries. Yet, it is an idea
engrained into many cultures and thus still
remains as a common crime deterrent
within many nations today. The death
penalty has been a long implemented
medium of penal retribution, with its first
record found in the Code of King
Hammurabi of Babylon in the eighteenth
century B.C.i In this code, capital
punishment was listed for twenty-five
various crimes and therefore was viewed as
an effective method to punish criminals as
well as prevent them from their illegal
actions. Two hundred years later, ancient
Egypt used the death penalty in a peculiar
fashion in which nobility were required to
carry out their own death sentence if they
had committed one of the coded crimes for
capital punishmentii. The death penalty then
appeared in two more prominent
civilizations, through the Hittite Code in
central Anatolia and the Draconian Code in
Athens, until it became famous in five
hundred B.C. during the Roman Empireiii.
During this time, the Roman Law of the
Twelve Tablets codified death penalty for
many crimes, from the publication of
insulting songs to willful murder. Based on
the level of the crime and the social status
of the criminal, the methods for carrying out
the death penalty often varied between
crucifixion, drowning at sea, burial alive,
beating to death, and impalement. In
Mosaic Law as well, Jewish culture
practiced capital punishment, with the most
well-known techniques being stoning,
hanging, beheading, and crucifixion. Capital
punishment usage then spread to Europe,
specifically Great Britain, around four
3
1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I hbhsmun.webs.com I [email protected]
General Assembly – 6th Legal
April 25th, 2015
countries who have not abolished juvenile
death penalty (the execution of children
under 18 years old) such as Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and Pakistanix. The most typical
crimes constituting the death penalty today
are murder, rape and terrorism; yet other
nations utilize it for others crimes such as
stealing, treason, or blasphemy against the
state religionx. Specifically, some Islamic
countries have held onto their right to use
capital punishment since in is a required
part of Islamic Law, as cited in the Qur’anxi.
Yet, the rest of the world sees capital
punishment as inhumane and thus believes
the claim of capital punishment under
Islamic law is invalid, leading to further
tensions over the issue. Currently, the forms
of death penalty that are most popular
include electrocution, hanging, lethal
injection, shooting by firing squad, shooting,
beheading, stoning, gas chamber, and
falling from an unknown heightxii. Most
countries who use the death penalty either
claim it as a necessary part of their religion
or as an effective crime deterrentxiii.
However, many other nations argue that
capital punishment violates the “cruel and
unusual punishment” clause proclaimed by
the United Nations Declaration of Human
Rightsxiv. Furthermore many countries claim
that the large financial costs of the death
penalty and the possibility of killing innocent
people make it an unnecessary form of
punishment. Overall, this is a topic that has
been highly debated and will continue to be
so. In this committee, it is our job to look at
these various points of view so we can
compromise and set up international
standards by which all countries are
satisfied.
punishment to essentially abolish the
practice. For the last 60 years, the UN has
seen and viewed the death penalty as a
major human rights violation. In 1948, the
UN took their first stance against capital
punishment through the ratification of the
Declaration of Human Rights. This
declaration included many statements that,
“everyone has the right to life”, and
eventually led to about 118 countries
completely eliminating or refusing to
practice the action within their
governmentsxv. However, since the
declaration does not require any nation to
officially abolish the death penalty, many
nations still practice the act within their
borders.
Therefore, the UN has taken action
in the attempt to abolish capital punishment
because, the UN “[has the] duty to prevent
innocent people from paying the ultimate
price for miscarriages of justice”xvi. The UN
has attempted to compromise and reason
with all countries who have not abolished
the death penalty by passing resolution
69/186, which calls for a moratorium (or
temporary abolishment of the action) of the
death penalty. Moreover this resolution
contains standard regulations as
compromises for nations that do practice
capital punishment. These include basic
guidelines, such as reducing the number of
crimes that capital punishment may be used
for, discontinuing the death penalty to
persons under the age of 18, and stopping
the re-institution of the death penalty in
nations that have already abolished it.
The UN has continuously been fighting for
the abolishment of capital punishment by
advocating for the moratorium since 2007,
and as each year passes, it is clear that the
moratorium will likely become a reality
within the international communityxvii. It has
been stated by Ban Ki-moon that, “a global
moratorium is a crucial stepping stone
towards full worldwide abolition”. The UN is
and always will strive to protect the people
of the international community if they feel
United Nations Involvement
The United Nations has played a
major role in the attempt to completely
eradicate capital punishment in the 21st
century. It has taken initiative and been the
driving force in the endeavor of convincing
nations that have yet to eliminate capital
4
1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I hbhsmun.webs.com I [email protected]
General Assembly – 6th Legal
April 25th, 2015
savage”. To no surprise, Mattan was
sentenced to death by hanging and was
executed on September 3, 1952.
In 1954, more research was done on
the Mattan case and evidence was found
linking Cover’s description of the murderer
to be almost identical to another Somali
man named Tehar Gass. Gass, that same
year, was charged with the murder of a
wages clerk and later pled to insanity. As
the investigation crept on, they discovered
that Detective Ludon Roberts of the Cardiff
Police Department was aware of the
mismatch of suspects; however, this
evidence was never presented before the
juryxx.On top of it all, Gass admitted to being
present in Volpert’s pawn shop the same
day the murder occurred. This fact was
also withheld from the grand jury.
Furthermore, there were major flaws
found within the trail’s testimony. Harold
Cover, the trial’s main witness, was later
found guilty of the attempted murder of his
daughter, in 1969. Ironically, Cover
attempted to cut the throat of his daughter
with a razor, much like the murder case that
he had testified in. The brutality and the
blood curdling irony of this event not only
testify to the insanity of Mr. Cover but prove
his complete lack of credibility as a
witnessxxi.
The Criminal Cases Review
Commission was created in the early 90s
and as their first task they found it pertinent
to revisit the Mahmood Mattan case. So on
February 24, 1998, the commission came to
the conclusion that the trial was very
severely flawed. Mahmood Hussein Mattan
was pardoned for his suspected actions in
the crime and his wife and three kids were
compensated £725,000 by the British
government for their lack of diligence, thus
marking the first compensation to be
awarded to someone who was falsely
hanged. While Mattan’s family did receive
monetary compensation, the question that
comes into play is whether money can
replace a life.
their human rights have been violated.
Therefore, in June 2013, Security-General
Ban Ki-moon also stated that, “the taking of
life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one
human being to inflict on another, even
when backed by legal process”xviii. The
dedication of the United Nations towards
this topic will continue to manifest and gain
support until the international community is
free of the use of capital punishment.
Case Study: Mahmood
Hussein Mattan
One of the most controversial
aspects of capital punishment is the
possibility of an executed person actually
being innocent. This was exactly the case
for Mahmood Hussein Mattan of the United
Kingdom. Mattan was born in Somalia in
1923 and served as a merchant seaman for
much of his early life. In the late 1940s,
Mattan moved to Cardiff, England and found
work as a steelworker until he retired in
1952. He had a long history of gambling
and playing cards, however, had no history
of violence.
On March 6, 1952, Lily Volpert, a 42
year-old pawnshop owner, was found
brutally murdered inside her shop with her
throat slit by a razor. Only hours after the
incident occurred, the Cardiff Police
arrested Mahmood Mattan under the
suspicion of the murder of Miss
Volpert. This, however, was not good
enough for the Volpert family. They decided
to put a hefty reward, amounting to the price
of a home in the 50s, for whoever would
come forward with information regarding the
case. This offer drew the attention of
Harold Cover, the case’s main witness, who
claimed to have seen Mattan leave Volpert’s
house on the night of the murder.xix To add
to Mattan’s misfortune, due to his
background and brevity in English, the case
was riddled with racial overtones; even
going as far as his own defense attorney
claiming him to be “semi-civilized
5
1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I hbhsmun.webs.com I [email protected]
II. Universal Jurisdiction
Topic Background
The principle of universal jurisdiction
has never been officially defined nor had its
scope
clarified
within
the
United
Nations. However, it is known to be the
idea that any national court can try cases of
the most serious crimes against humanity,
regardless of where or by whom the crime
was committedxxii. The most typical uses for
universal jurisdiction are in cases of crimes
against humanity, war crimes, genocide,
and torture. The idea behind the utilization
of this principle is that it allows every
country the right to take whatever actions
necessary to prevent harm within the
international
community.
Universal
jurisdiction has been most traditionally used
when there are atypical cases of criminal
jurisdiction such as the defendant not being
a national of the accusing country or the
crime not being committed within the
accusing country’s territoryxxiii.
The idea of universal jurisdiction was
first presented in major UN human rights
doctrines, and then became an assumed
part of international humanitarian law.
Although never specifically defined, the idea
has been clearly laid out for countries to
take advantage of in cases of major human
rights violations, with the most well-known
instance
within
the
1949
Geneva
Conventions. In the Conventions, the UN
defines many “grave breaches” (or more
simply put, war crimes) that, when broken,
allow nations to search for the perpetrators
and “bring such persons, regardless of
nationality, before its own courts” xxiv . This
very clearly permits states to go beyond the
nationality of the criminal or location of a
crime in order to prosecute a criminal as
quickly as possible in any judicial system.
This idea was very new at the time,
however has grown into the entitlement for
states to assert their own jurisdiction when
other
nations
are
not
enforcing
internationally accepted legal codes.
Universal
jurisdiction is
often
considered very similar to the ideas of the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court and the UN obligation to “prosecute or
extradite.” However, there are some key
differences that must be considered.
Regarding the ICC, in its Rome Statute,
there are very specific limitations set up to
define the cases over which the ICC may
preside. For example, the ICC can only
exercise jurisdiction if the accused person is
a national of a state party to the ICC or a
state who openly accepts the ICC’s
jurisdiction. Also the ICC may only have
jurisdiction over a case if the crime took
place in one of the state parties or states
that openly accept the ICC’s jurisdiction.
The only way around these two limitations is
if the Security Council has referred the
situation to the ICCxxv. Universal jurisdiction,
in principle, has none of these limitations.
With the considerations of extradition, this is
a treaty-based obligation imposed by
various conventions, such as the Torture
Convention of 1984 and the 1949 Geneva
Conventions. But again, in treaties like the
Geneva conventions, this obligation of
extradition only takes place when countries
voluntarily accept the idea xxvi . Therefore,
extradition has its limitations as well, while
universal jurisdiction is freely assumed by
all countries.
The first major case in which universal
jurisdiction was used in an important way
was in 1998, when Chilean dictator Augusto
Pinochet was arrested while traveling in
Europe. Pinochet was known for committing
many crimes against humanity towards his
own citizens, and therefore, lawyer Joan
Garces had already been searching for a
way to indict him. Prior to the arrest, Garces
had filed a lawsuit in the Spanish National
Court on Chile and the need to apply
universal jurisdiction for the government’s
General Assembly – 6th Legal
April 25th, 2015
brutal treatment of its. So, Garces took this
previous case and issued an arrest warrant
on Pinochet as soon as he traveled out of
the political safety of his own country.
Pinochet was to be extradited to Spain and
then tried for his crimes xxvii . Although the
extradition never took place, the case was a
huge breakthrough in the application of
universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction
then became a doctrine applied to many
more political criminals and political leaders
who had previously been considered
immune to the law. Its scope became much
larger and more powerful than countries
ever imagined it would grow to be.
Because the UN has never officially
determined what universal jurisdiction is or
the scope at which it can be applied, there
are many controversies over its usage
today. In 2012, the United Nations
addressed universal jurisdiction and laid out
the specifics which needed to be identified,
including a definition of the term, the
difference of universal jurisdiction to the
jurisdiction of the ICC, the difference of
universal jurisdiction and the obligation to
extradite, the possible immunity of state
officials, the possible need for consent of a
state attorney general in order to use
universal jurisdiction, and general rules for
its application and scope xxviii These are all
details which need to be heavily considered
as 6th Legal strives to identify what exactly
is universal jurisdiction and any possible
limitations behind it.
order to discuss the creation of a definition
that would be accepted worldwide for
universal jurisdiction. Sadly, the delegations
at this session were not able to agree on
such a definition. So, 6th committee is still
currently attempting to define universal
jurisdiction as well as its scope in the
international community.
As seen within the international
community, universal jurisdiction is a highly
controversial topic and therefore the United
Nations fully recognizes its importance. The
UN covered the majority of issues within
universal jurisdiction in the report entitled
The Scope and Application of the Principle
of Universal Jurisdiction, a draft resolution
that continues to be amended according to
the policies of delegates at each sessionxxx.
This document states that the UN takes into
consideration each government’s policies
on how universal jurisdiction is linked to the
sovereignty of a nation as well as each
nation’s laws and belief in jurisdiction. In
addition, the report points out the
unfortunate truth that many crimes
deserving
international
attention
go
unpunished because a criminal lies within
the safety of protection in their own nation
which may not persecute him or her. This
report is the main resource in the United
Nations
policy
regarding
universal
jurisdiction. The Sixth committee is
determined to continue to hold sessions in
order to fully submit observations,
information on treaties that could be
incorporated into the document, and
territorial laws and regulations regarding the
judicial ruling of member states.
In addition the Sixth committee also
has also established a working group made
of all delegations in the 68th session of the
drafting of The Scope and Application of the
Principle of Universal Jurisdiction xxxi . This
working group has and will continue to focus
on the concerns and issues presented by
delegations at recent sessions regarding
universal jurisdiction. Another main focus of
the working group is to clear up the gray
United Nations Involvement
The United Nations has recently
called more attention and involvement to the
topic and controversy that is universal
jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction does not
currently have a set definition within the
United Nations, meaning there are no set
regulations or guidelines for when it is
appropriate to be utilizedxxix. This is why in
2009, the Sixth committee held a session in
7
1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I hbhsmun.webs.com I [email protected]
General Assembly – 6th Legal
April 25th, 2015
areas of legal rules and the future
regulations of the application of universal
jurisdiction
within
the
international
community so it stays in line with
international law and its regulations. The
United Nations is thus persistent in reaching
international consensus on universal
definition to coincide with the many
individual policies on the topic.
received an accusation for being the
informants of the Hutu soldiers that
massacred the Tutsis from whom the
Sisters refused asylum. In addition, Sister
Kizito was indicted for providing the
gasoline used to set fire to a garage
containing 500 of these Tutsi.
Sister Kizito was soon after sentenced to 15
years in prison in Belgium, while her coconspirator Sister Gertrude received a 12
year sentence; both with no appeal. The
nuns actively disputed the legality and
fairness of the trialxxxiii. Their main argument
was that the foreign jury would have no
understanding of the intricacy of the 1994
Rwandan
genocide.
However,
the
opposition argued the two sisters were in
full aware of their actions and were just
trying to alter the situation into becoming a
political debate. Both sides possessed
legitimate grounds in the argument;
however because of the groundbreaking
nature of the case, the trial was declared
credible. Since then, several trials like this
have occurred and some question the
legality of the situation. Largely because
the United Nations does not have any
declaration regarding universal jurisdiction,
we are unable to come to any conclusion
regarding the case’s authenticityxxxiv.
Case Study: Rwanda
One notorious case of universal
jurisdiction is the prosecution and
sentencing of two Rwandan nuns, Sister
Maria Kisito and Sister Gertrude, for their
actions in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In
2001,
the
two
Rwandan
Catholic
Benedictine nuns were convicted by the
Belgian Crown Court for their engagements
in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Sister
Maria Kizito and Sister Gertrude were found
guilty of denying around 7,000 people
access to refuge during the 100-day
conflict. When combat erupted, the sisters
rejected local Tutsis asylum in their church
compound, most being women and
children. Soon after, these innocent Tutsis
were killed by Hutu militant forcesxxxii. After
situations settled, the two nuns fled from
Rwanda to Belgium in 1994 and later
8
1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I hbhsmun.webs.com I [email protected]
General Assembly – 6th Legal
April 25th, 2015
Questions to Consider
Capital Punishment:
1. Has your country abolished capital punishment? If not what is the most recent
occurrence of capital punishment being used?
2. What crimes does your country believe should be punishable by the death penalty, if
your country is in favor of capital punishment?
3. What direct actions has your country taken either to support or reject capital punishment
as a legitimate form of punishment?
4. What is your country’s view of the use of Capital Punishment through Islamic Law?
5. What methods of Capital Punishment, if any, are supported by your country?
6. Has your country participated either for or against any treaties or resolutions regarding
the use or prohibition of capital punishment?
7. If your country does not support Capital Punishment, what actions does it believe must
be taken against countries that do?
8. How many people has your country executed? If several, how many of those who were
executed were considered innocent later on?
Universal Jurisdiction:
1. Does your country believe in the unlimited usage of universal jurisdiction?
2. Has your country used universal jurisdiction to extradite any criminals in the past?
3. Should countries individually preside over when to use universal jurisdiction, or should
the decision be accepted by the international community?
4. Has your country supported a certain definition of universal jurisdiction?
5. What specific crimes does your country believe universal jurisdiction should be used for?
6. Does your country believe that the use universal jurisdiction takes away a nation’s
sovereignty?
7. If your country does not believe in universal jurisdiction, do have any alternatives?
8. What should happen to past rulings if universal jurisdiction were to be eliminated?
i
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty
ii https://books.google.com/books?id=SOiuzOv061EC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=hittite+c
ode+death+penalty&so
urce=bl&ots=JdlNpuGR8u&sig=QgCiJkq4wY7lYYuvA56xkoUg7eM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fJ_0VN_lN4iuog
Sot4LQDA&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=hittite%20code%20death%20penalty&f=false
iii http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
iv
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/international-deathpenalty
v http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/death-sentences-and-executions-2013
vi http://www.businessinsider.com/amnesty-international-death-penalty-report-2014-10
vii https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/
viii
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/abolitionist-and-retentionistcountries?scid=30&did=140#de%20facto
9
1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I hbhsmun.webs.com I [email protected]
General Assembly – 6th Legal
April 25th, 2015
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-juveniles-us-and-other-countries
http://www.icomdp.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Most-seriouscrimes_final_6Feb2013.pdf
xihttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/capitalpunishment.shtml
xii http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/methods-of-execution.cfm
xiii http://balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm
xiv http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/dp_qa.pdf
xv http://www.ocadp.org/un-and-the-declaration-of-human-rights.html
xvi http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45305#.VQTAWzpCf-Y
xvii
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/growing-un-support-for-deathpenalty-moratorium-a-sign-of-unstoppable-movement-towards-abolition
xviii http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45305#.VQTAWzpCf-Y
xix http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/hhmattan/
xx http://www.britishexecutions.co.uk/execution-content.php?key=32
xxi http://netk.net.au/UK/Mattan.asp
xxii https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/universal-jurisdiction-6-31.html
xxiii http://www.ijrcenter.org/cases-before-national-courts/domestic-exercise-of-universaljurisdiction/
xxiv https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/163/28202.html
xxv http://www.icccpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/icc%20at%20a%20glance
/Pages/jurisdiction%20an
d%20admissibility.aspx
xxvi http://www.un.org/press/en/2011/gal3415.doc.htm
xxvii
https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2013/10/how-general-pinochetsdetention-changed-meaningjustice/
xxviii http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/66/ScopeAppUniJuri.shtml
xxix http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/64/UnivJur.shtml
xxx http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/66/ScopeAppUniJuri.shtml
xxxi http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/68/UnivJur.shtml
xxxii
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/06/world/mother-superior-s-role-in-rwandahorror-is-weighed.html
xxxiii http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1376692.stm
xxxiv
http://www.trial-ch.org/en/ressources/trial-watch/trialwatch/profils/profile/186/action/show/controller/Profile.html
ix
x
10
1905 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I hbhsmun.webs.com I [email protected]