ABSTRACT
Amnesties and penal prescriptions are leniency institutions
that originate in domestic law. Founded on social, moral and constitutional
principles, their manifestation or application depends on the legislator who,
for a good application and respect for democratic principles, needs the consent
of the people. However, these practices are considered in IHRL as practices
inciting impunity for those responsible for human rights violations. It is in
this perspective that the DIDH, recognizing amnesties under certain conditions,
rejects penal prescriptions to promote the principle of the imprescriptibility
of crimes. Indeed, with regard to amnesties, the condition for its application
in domestic law since the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols (1 and 2) is
that States must verify that the offenses which are amnestied are not
international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Another crime also has an international character since the Hague Convention,
and that is the crime of torture. As long as this condition is met, the amnesty
can apply. With regard to penal prescriptions, the IHRL formally prohibits this
practice and believes that no other alternative can be taken for its
application because, favoring the imprescriptibility of penalties for which the
International Convention was put in place in 1968. However, some foundations
and recognition of amnesties and prescriptions, derives from the consequences
or legal impacts on the victims of human rights, on the perpetrators but also
on society.
Of all these impacts, the IHRL only retains those relating to
human rights violations and more particularly the alleged perpetrators and
victims who initially suffer horrors, but are not repaired later. Indeed, the
alleged perpetrators after the benefit of leniency, are free and do not take
any responsibility for the violations, which is not for the normal IHRL.
Finally, for the victims, the latter do not receive reparations and sometimes
see their complaints rejected for lack of time, for reasons of oblivion by
society. It is in this perspective that the IHRL has set up extra-judicial
mechanisms such as Transitional Justice and jurisdictional mechanisms such as
Criminal Courts, like the IPC.
Key words :- International Crimes-
International Penal Court- International human rights law-Recognition-
Rejection- Imprescriptibility- Transitional Justice.
SOMMAIRE
7
INTRODUCRION .
PREMIERE PARTIE : FONDEMENTS ET
IMPACTS JURIDIQUES EN DROIT
INTERNATIONAL DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
CHAPITRE I : FONDEMENTS JURIDIQUES DES AMNISTIES ET DES
PRESCRIPTIONS
PENALES
SECTION I : Les fondements et la manifestation des amnisties
et des prescriptions pénales
SECTION II : La reconnaissance internationale des amnisties et
des prescriptions pénales :
entre codification (acceptation) et difficultés
d'application .
CHAPITRE II : IMPACTS JURIDIQUES DES AMNISTIES ET DES
PRESCRIPTIONS SECTION I : Les impacts sur les victimes : entre violation et
garanti des droits des victimes
des violations des DH
Section II : Les impacts sur les présumés
auteurs de crimes et la société
DEUXIEME PARTIE : LES MECANISMES DE PROTECTION DES
DROITS DES VICTIMES APRES LA MISE EN OEUVRE DES AMNISTIES ET DES
PRESCRIPTIONS PENALES .
CHAPITRE III : LES
MECANISMES JURIDICTIONNELS ET EXTRA-
JURIDICTIONNELS
SECTION I : Les mécanismes juridictionnels .
SECTION II : Les mécanismes extrajudiciaires de
protection des droits des victimes : la justice
transitionnelle
CHAPITRE IV : APPROCHE ET SOLUTIONS DANS
L'ADMINISTRATION ET LA GARANTIE DES DROITS DES VICTIMES ET DES PRESUMES AUTEURS
DES CRIMES
EN AFRIQUE ..
SECTION I : Solutions relatives à l'administration des
amnisties et des prescriptions .
SECTION II : Solutions de garanti des droits des victimes et
des présumés auteurs des crimes. CONCLUSION GENERALE :
| 
