The Created Superior Council Encompassed Two Houses, Namely

Imagine for a moment what it would be like if the entire population of Sonoma County, California was killed, and twenty years later not many people knew a great deal about it. When over 500,000 people, primarily Tutsis, were killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, it was a great tragedy. However, no one rushed to the country’s aid. Now it is vital that the horrors of the instance that violated the human rights of so many, is not forgotten. Human rights are the universal actions and objects that all people are entitled to because they are human. Human rights have been violated in numerous ways over time, typically as a result of a person in power having their own best interests in mind rather than the peoples´. Various groups, such as Amnesty

Over the time the Supreme Court gained the power. The Judiciary is the system of courts, but it is also a “process”. As the historic circumstances were changing the Judiciary had to adapt too. In the last fifty years there were two judicial revolutions that increased the power of the Court. The first one was in the area of civil rights when the Court liberalized many public policies. In the second revolution the Judiciary

Have we forgotten about the International Covenant of Civil Rights and Political rights (ICCPR), the Convention under Torture and other

A few United Nations representatives from Cuba, India, and Panama have wished to resolve the problem of genocide by recognizing it as an international crime, as stated in Document A. For example, inadequate provisions were placed when various Nazis were not punished for their wrongdoings. Nonetheless, this is seen as a negative aspect; however, it should be seen as motivation for others to strive to prevent further acts of genocide by punishing it as an international crime and create international laws. Since the late 1940s the United Nations has brought forth countless amounts of articles and documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Document E), which includes various articles that back up specific rights such as the right to life, liberty, and security of person, for these rights have since then helped prevent acts of genocide. It is through international laws where genocide will be ceased by making it an international crime, where it will assure international cooperation for its prevention and be dealt with its true deserving

Schaefer and Groves’ argument contains facts. As an example, the International Criminal Court does not have a clear definition of what the crime of aggression is and has yet to define the crimes it claims jurisdiction over (p. 152). This fact supports why the United States’ decision is justifiable because their military actions could be charged by enemy countries since there is no clear definition of what aggression means. Another example is that the International Criminal Court can prosecute an individual from a country that is not party

Once a judge has been appointed, their only source of input when making decisions is the laws that were created. They are not supposed to be influenced by outside forces, such as, media or politicians. Because of this there is a natural buffer from decisions being my by majority rule and instead left up to the individual judge. Since this is a check on a balance of power I see no issue with this method, if there is an issue that rises they judge can be removed. So, this non majority based system of power is a good compliment to the other two forms of (mostly) majority institutions, the Congress and the Executive banches.

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

There is the Constitutional Court, which upholds the integrity of the constitution, decide how constitutional a law is, and to make amendments to it. The Superior Judicial Council’s job is to solve disputes between the other courts. Its judges are chosen by the other three courts and serve for an eight-year term. The Council of State is the highest court for civil law, and its judges are chosen from a selection of judges chosen by the Superior Judicial Council. The fourth and final court is the Supreme Court of Justice and is the highest criminal court, the judges are chosen the same as the Council of State and both groups of judges serve for four-year terms. All of the courts are as coequal as possible and intertwined as one can see in how they choose their judges.

In the history of the Supreme Court’s decisions, there were cases which subsequently overturned by later cases. In most cases which the court almost split it votes, for instance 5-4 votes like in this very case, the dissending arguments have been morely supported.

establish” (Criminal Courts, 94). While the supreme court has the highest power in the country, it

It is said that, “Delivering justice for mass atrocities is a daunting challenge in any country, and the scale of the Rwandan genocide would have overwhelmed even the best­ equipped judicial system” (Rwanda). Even though there were doubts, the government of Rwanda believed that they would be able to deliver justice through the domestic and community courts. It turned out that Rwanda was able to push through and serve their country justice in less than twenty years. The government took great efforts in order to deliver the justice that they felt was necessary for their people. The justice process did not go without sacrifice. Furthermore, “Some have paid a high price. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, in particular, thousands of people were arbitrarily arrested, and many were charged and tried in the absence of solid evidence against them. Some might have been wrongly convicted. The lack of safeguards against abusive prosecutions in a weak judicial system heightened the risk of unfair trials” (Rwanda). This illustrates the flaws that pushing for justice can create. Although it is important for victims to be awarded with a sense of righteousness, rushing the process can cause even more

The Supreme Court plays a vital role in our society. It has shaped our history and continues to shape our future; however, with every decision that has to be made, there will be varying opinions. To resolve these disputes, the Supreme Court follows strict guidelines to maintain order. These include, but are not limited to, which cases can be heard, who can oversee the hearing, differing opinions in court, evidence presentation, oral argument, motions in court, appearance of counsel, etc.

Having human rights in place imposes certain obligations on the government and justifies the complaints of those whose rights and freedoms have not been respected. Everyone is entitled to human rights regardless of their nationality, gender, race, religion, or political opinion. The failure to recognize these rights results in conflict and a vicious cycle of violence as more human rights are violated. To avoid such clashes, human rights have become a fundamental part of global law and policy. However, they have not always been that way. Catastrophic events in history that claimed thousands of lives ran their vicious course before it was recognized that there had to be human rights established. The most famous example of genocide is the Holocaust, which killed around six million Jews. After the Holocaust, the United Nations recognized that there had to be human rights put into place. Two human rights from the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” that were perversely violated during the Holocaust are Article 5 (the protection against inhumane treatment or punishment) and Article 25 (the right to a standard of living.) Light is shed upon the exploitation of human rights during the Holocaust in both Night by Elie Wiesel and The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness by Simon Wiesenthal. The Holocaust was a devastating event that opened our eyes to just how cruel humans can be, and why human rights must be enforced and protected.

The Colombian government is a republic. It has a long democratic tradition. It is separated into 32 departments. It has one capitol district, Fe de Bogota. The president is the head. He is elected for a four-year term by a national vote. The current president is Juan Manuel Santos. Congress contains the Senate and The House of Representatives. You have to be at least eighteen to be able to vote.

There is a close relationship between human rights and criminal law. The scope of my paper will surround human rights and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addition to human rights and international crimes. International criminal justice in this context speaks to those interested in prosecuting against the background of international human rights and humanitarian norms. The use of criminal law has many positive effects and pursues many goals that are worth considering. For example, deterrence, accountability and punishment are important principles that will be discussed in the context of human rights. Is the International Criminal Court an effective method to promote and protect human rights internationally? If so, why and how?