Límites a la exoneración de responsabilidad en el derecho internacional: la selección y priorización de casos en la jurisdicción nacional

Much has been said about the legal tools that a State has to confront a process of transitional justice. Traditionally, international literature has discussed the content of the “truth, justice and reparation” standards. Notwithstanding, little attention has been paid to the legal sources that may limit or permit the partial preclusion of wrongfulness in transitional justice mechanisms. This preclusion of wrongfulness may be part of a prosecutorial policy of prioritization and selection of cases, which may be in turn linked to partial amnesties or pardons. The objective of this article is to study three regulatory frameworks in international law: 1) international human rights law; 2) international humanitarian law; and 3) international criminal law. A close look reveals that no international instrument requires that a State investigates every case related to the armed conflict. In general terms, international law prohibits the adoption of blanket amnesties, but allows the State to select and prioritize its cases, without punishing the partial preclusion of wrongfulness of some of the perpetrators.

• Fecha de publicación: 2014
• Institución: Universidad del Rosario
• Repositorio: Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario
• Idioma: spa
• OAI Identifier: oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/15656
• Acceso en línea: https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/15656
• Palabra clave: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos; amnistías; obligación de investigación; aut dedere aut judicare; jurisdicciones complementarias; Interamerican Court of Human Rights; amnesties; duty to investigate; aut dedere aut judicare; complementary jurisdictions; Cour internationale des droits de l’homme; amnisties; obligation d’enquêter; aut dedere aut judicare; juridictions complémentaires.
• License: Derechos de autor 2014 Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional - ACDI