1

Abstract

The relationship between the gravity of a crime and its sentence isstraightforward: the more serious a crime, the heavier its sentence.According to this important consideration, the gravity of international crimesentails much debate in the legal literature, particularly in the opinions ofinternational criminal judges. The issue is further complicated when dealingwith crimes against humanity and war crimes, since doctrine and judicialdecisions are rather divergent. If crimes against humanity are more seriousthan war crimes then, all things being equal, a punishable offence, if chargedand proven as a crime against humanity, should ordinarily entail a heavierpenalty than if it were proceeded upon on the basis that it were a war crime.Invoking the statutes of international criminal tribunals, no difference inseriousness is suggested, as has been pointed by some scholars;nor does anydifference in seriousness appear in the jurisprudence of the Nuremberg orTokyo international criminal tribunals. Others noted that an act constituting acrime against humanity should be committed “as part of a widespread orsystematic practice” and so a crime against humanity is intrinsically moreserious than a war crime. There is also an argument that focuses on victimsof these crimes and attempts to analyze the response of the internationalcommunity. After all, the different “contexts” of these crimes are extremelyimportant. Prosecuting crimes against humanity is intended to protect asocietal interest over and above those visualized by war crimes and should,in consequence, entail heavier punishment.KeywordsCrimes against humanity, Determining sentence, International CriminalTribunal for Former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda, War crimes.مناسبی برای شدیدتر بودن جنایات علیه بشریت قلمداد م یکنند. استدلا لهای دیگرهم به قربانیان این جرائم نظر دارند و در پی تحلیل واکنش جامعه بی نالمللی به این دومتفاوت ارتکاب ه ریک از این دو جرم از اهمیت « بستر » جرم هستند. مع هذا شایدبیشتری برخوردار باشد. جنایات جنگی و جنایات علیه بشریت به وضوح از منافع مختلفیحمایت م یکنند که این امر خود م یتواند مبنای مناسبی برای تحمیل مجازا تهایمختلف بر آنها باشد

فهرست منابع
الف) فارسی
فصلنامه سیاست ،« چالش های فراروی دیوان کیفری بین المللی » ؛( 1. بیگ زاده، ابراهیم( 1382
.372- 357 :( خارج ، ی تابستان، 2 (پیاپی 17
2. قاری سید فاطمی، سید محمد( 1389 )؛ حقوق بشر در جهان معاصر، دفتر دوم: جستارهایی تحلیلی از
ح قها و آزاد یه،ا چاپ دوم، تهران، مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش های حقوقی شهر دانش.
مجله پژوهش ،« سیر تحول الغای مجازات اعدام در شورای اروپا » ؛( 3. داشاب، مهریار( 1385
.91- 63 ، حقوق و سیاس ، ت ش 18
ب) لاتین
Books
4. Olusanya, Olaoluwa. (2005).Sentencing War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
under the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Groningen:
Europa Law Publishing.
Articles
5. Bagaric, M.(2000).Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing.California Criminal
Law Review, 2(1): 1-27. Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjcl/vol2/iss1/1
6. Bohlander, Michael.(2000). Prosecutor v. Tadic: Waiting to Exhale.Criminal Law
Forum, 11: 217-248.
7. D’Ascoli, Silvia. (2008). Sentencing in International Criminal Law: The approach
of the Two UN ad hoc Tribunals and Future perspectives for ICC. PhD diss.
European University Institute.
8. Frulli, Micaela. (2001).Are Crimes against Humanity More Serious than War
Crimes?.European Journal of International Law,12: 329-350.
9. Holá, Barbora, CatrienBijleveld and AletteSmeulers. (2012).Consistency of
international sentencing: ICTY and ICTR case study.European Journal of
Criminology,9:539-552.
10. Holá, Barbora. (2014). Consistency and Pluralism of International Sentencing: An
Empirical Assessment of the ICTY and ICTR Practice, in Elies Van Sliedregt and
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 71 مقایسه شدت جرم و مجازات جنایات علیه بشریت ...
72
Sergey Vasiliev (eds).Pluralism in International Criminal Law, New York, Oxford
University Press.
11. Hunt, K.S., and S. Sridharan. (2010).A Realist Evaluation Approach to
Unpacking the Impacts of theSentencing Guidelines. American Journal of
Evaluation,31:463–485.
12. Kramer, J.H. (2009).Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines: The Framing of
Justice.Criminology and Public Policy, 8 (2): 313–321.
13. Olusanya, Olaoluwa. (2004). Do Crimes against humanity deserve a higher
sentence than war crimes?.International Criminal Law Review, 4:431–473.
14. Roberts, J.V. (2011). Sentencing Guidelines and Judicial Discretion, Evolution of
the Duty of Courts toComply in England and Wales.British Journal of
Criminology,51 (6): 997-1013.
15. Schwelb, Egon. (1946). Crimes against Humanity.British Yearbook of
International Law,23: 178-226.
Judicial Decisions
16. Prosecutorv.AlfredMusema. “ICTR-96-13-A.” 27 January 2000.
17. Prosecutor v. AntoFurundzija. “IT-95-17/1-A.” 21 July 2000.
18. Prosecutor v. DrazenErdemovic. “IT-96-22-A.” 7 October 1997.
19. Prosecutor v. DrazenErdemovic. “IT-96-22-Tbis.” 5 March 1998.
20. Prosecutor v. DrazenErdemovic. “Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and
Judge Vohrah.” 7 October 1997.
21. Prosecutor v. DrazenErdemovic. “Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Li.”
7 October 1997.
22. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu. “ICTR-96-4-T.” 2 September 1998.
23. Prosecutor v. Kambanda. “Indictment, ICTR-97-23-DP.” 28 October 1997.
24. Prosecutor v. Kambanda. “Judgement and Sentence, ICTR-97-23-S.” 4
September 1998.
25. Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana. “Sentence, ICTR-95-1-T.” 21 May
1999.
26. Prosecutorv. Milosevic. “Judgement, IT-98-29/1-T.” 12 December 2007.
27. Prosecutor v. Serushago. “Sentence, ICTR-98-39-S.” 5 February 1999.
28. Prosecutor v. Stakic. “Judgement, IT-97-24-A.” 22 March 2006.
29. Prosecutor v. Tadic. “Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-
Abis.” 26 January 2000.
30. Prosecutor v.Tadic. “Sentencing Judgment, IT-94-1-T.” 14 July 1997.
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 71 مقایسه شدت جرم و مجازات جنایات علیه بشریت ...
73
31. Prosecutor v. Tadic. “Sentencing Judgment, IT-94-1-Tbis-R11711.” November
1999.
32. Prosecutor v. Tadic. “Separate Opinion of Judge Cassese.” 26 January 2000.
33. Prosecutor v. Tadic. “Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson.” 11 November 1999.
34. Prosecutor v. Tadic. “Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen.” 26 January
2000.