JOHN CARLOS I

KING OF SPAIN

To all who present it and understand it.

Sabed: That the General Courts have approved and I come to sanction the following Organic Law:

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 (1993) has created an International Tribunal for the prosecution of alleged perpetrators of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Iraq. the territory of the former Yugoslavia, while approving its Statute.

Adopted such a Resolution on the enabling basis of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, there is no doubt of its binding legal status in the international sphere for all States.

Paragraph 4 of the Resolution obliges all States to take the necessary measures in accordance with their domestic law, to comply with the Resolution and to make the Statute effective. It is not a matter of recognising the jurisdiction of the Court, as is usual in relation to other international courts, because such already exists, but to take appropriate domestic measures, taking into account the its legal source, which is not an international treaty but a resolution of an International Organization.

The Law is based on a pre-existing international law of a conventional or customary nature, such as the so-called humanitarian law, basically contained in the Geneva Conventions or the Convention on Genocide. It is a general view that this conventional law has become part of customary law.

The Law, based on the self-executive character, in the material sense, of a large part of the Statute, provides only some provisions that allow to be used, in those matters reserved for the Organic Law by our Constitution.

In Article 3 the Ministry of Justice is attributed the functions of Central Authority, for external relations with the Court, centralizing in the internal order the judicial functions in the National Court, which already has exclusive jurisdiction in the field of extradition, jurisdiction and process transfers. This does not, of course, exclude the general powers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the internal competence of the military jurisdiction in its case.

In Article 4, the hypothesis of concurrent jurisdictions, including military jurisdiction, is regulated by providing procedural supplements to the principle of preeminence of the International Court of Justice established in Article 9 of the Statute and, in accordance with that solution, the principle is also developed , although no reference is made to paragraph 2 (b) of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, because the hypotheses can hardly be given in Spain.

In Article 6, it is regulated, adapting to the Statute, the arrest. There must be no doubt as to the origin, in the abstract, of the arrest, on the one hand, because there will normally be double criminality and, on the other, because, regardless of the unilateral rules of international competition, there is also a competition rules to that effect, as a result of the Statute itself.

Significant alteration in relation to our rules on extradition, is that Articles 19 and 20 of the Statute do not speak at any time of extradition, but of the surrender or referral to the Tribunal. The Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (paragraph 102) it appears clearly to exclude the extradition procedure. This device coincides with previous Spanish approaches, on simplification of extradition, which were discussed at the Funchal Conference of Ministers of Justice of the Communities and currently being studied in the framework of the Coordination Committee. The Council of the European Union is a member of the European Parliament.

Of all these elements, it is also apparent that the system of sentences in absentia is rejected.

In Article 7.3, an extraterritorial jurisdiction is recognized for the prosecution of crimes of false testimony before the International Tribunal, thus filling a loophole in our order, although such innovation has already been preceded by a provision in that regard in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the Communities and in the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

In terms of compliance with penalties, provisions are contained in Article 8 that may not be immediate, since they are subordinate to Spain making a specific declaration to accept being a State of compliance.

Article 1. Obligation of cooperation.

Spain will give full cooperation to the International Tribunal for the prosecution of the alleged perpetrators of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia (henceforth, ), created by United Nations Security Council Resolution 827 (1993).

Article 2. Sources.

Cooperation shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Resolution 827 (1993), the Statute of the Court, this Law and, as otherwise provided, by the general criminal, substantive and procedural rules.

Article 3. Competent authorities.

1. Without prejudice to the powers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice shall be the Central Authority competent to deal with and to address the requests for cooperation of the International Court.

2. The organs of the National Court, within the scope of their respective powers, shall be exclusively competent for cooperation with the International Court.

Article 4. Concurrent jurisdiction.

1. Where the Spanish courts of the ordinary or military jurisdiction are competent, in accordance with their respective organic and procedural rules, to judge acts falling within the scope of the Statute of the International Tribunal, initiate or continue the proceedings, as long as they are not required for inhibition by the International Court.

2. Having received the request for inhibition, the judge or tribunal shall suspend the proceedings and, without prejudice to any further examination of urgent proceedings, shall send the action to the National Court, which shall give the order of the Court of Inhibition in favour of the Court International. The military judicial organs, if any, will refer the actions, through the Central Military Tribunal, to the National Court.

3. The requirement may be dismissed only if the fact does not fall within the scope of temporary or territorial jurisdiction of the International Court.

4. No Spanish judge or tribunal may bring judicial dispute to the International Court, limiting itself to stating the reasons for its own competence.

Article 5. Principle .

Persons judged in Spain for an ordinary offence may also be the International Tribunal, if the qualification given by the International Court to the same facts shall be based on the classifications provided for in the Statute of the Court of Justice. International.

Article 6. Detention and delivery.

1. The person residing in Spain against whom an indictment has been confirmed and who has been given by the Court of First Instance of the International Court a warrant for arrest shall be detained and informed of the charges against him. Central Court of Instruction of the National Court.

2. The National Court will agree to the surrender, without the need for a formal extradition procedure, specifying in the same resolution the maximum duration of the provisional detention that is under Spanish law.

Article 7. Appearance before the International Court.

1. The persons summoned to appear before the International Tribunal, as witnesses or experts, shall have the same obligation to appear as the one required to appear in Spain.

2. The Ministry of Justice will anticipate the necessary expenses for the appearance.

3. The false testimony before the International Tribunal will be assimilated to the crime of false testimony in criminal proceedings, being able to be tried in Spain at the request of the International Tribunal.

4. Spain guarantees the immunity of people in transit to appear before the International Court.

Article 8. Compliance with penalties.

1. If Spain makes the declaration provided for in Article 27 of the Statute of the International Tribunal, it shall specify in that declaration that it shall follow the procedure for the prosecution of the sentence and that it shall not exceed the maximum prescribed for the custodial sentences. of freedom in Spain.

2. The Prison Surveillance Judges will report to the National Court, and is to the Ministry of Justice, of any significant impact on compliance.

3. When a case of pardon or commutation is initiated, the Ministry of Justice will bring it to the attention of the International Court, and no resolution can be adopted until the International Court has ruled, rejecting the case. benefit if the Court has so decided.

Single end disposition. Effective.

This Law shall remain in force until the dissolution of the International Tribunal, without prejudice to the effects arising from the application of Articles 7.3 and 8.

Therefore,

I command all Spaniards, individuals and authorities to keep and keep this Organic Law.

Madrid, 1 June 1994.

JOHN CARLOS R.

The President of the Government,

FELIPE GONZÁLEZ MARQUEZ