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.
)