نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
2 استادیار، گروه حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. (نویسنده مسؤول)
3 دانشیار، گروه حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The most important issue raised in the International Criminal Court regarding the immunity of heads of states was the case of Omar al-Bashir, which is important in several ways: the country concerned is not a member of the Court's statutes; and the conflict between the lack of immunity of heads of state and the rule prohibiting the possibility of invoking the personal immunity of heads of states. The objectives pursued by this research are firstly to examine the priority of human rights and humanitarian law standards over the rule of immunity of heads of states and secondly, considering that the crimes in Darfur took place in an Islamic country called Sudan, therefore, the prosecution of Omar al-Bashir in the court represents the approach of the international community to an Islamic country. The main question in this descriptive-analytical research is what legal challenges exist for the lack of immunity of the heads of state, emphasizing the Omar-Al-Bashir case in the International Criminal Courts. The result of the present research is that the rule of the possibility of invoking the personal immunity of the heads of states in the international criminal courts is accepted as an international customary rule and that only the rules of human rights and international humanitarian rights are applicable.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)