Practice Relating to Rule 160. Statutes of Limitation
Quick navigation
UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
The preamble to the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity recognizes that “it is necessary and timely to affirm in international law, through this Convention, the principle that there is no period of limitation for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to secure its universal application”. 
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 2391 (XXIII), 26 November 1968, preamble.

Article 1 of the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity provides:
No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:
(a) War crimes as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3(1) of 13 February 1946 and 95(I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, particularly the “grave breaches” enumerated in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims;
(b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3(I) of 13 February 1946 and 95(I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed. 
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 2391 (XXIII), 26 November 1968, Article 1.

European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes
Article 1 of the 1974 European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes provides:
Each Contracting State undertakes to adopt any necessary measures to secure that statutory limitation shall not apply to the prosecution of the following offences, or to the enforcement of the sentences imposed for such offences, in so far as they are punishable under its domestic law:
1. the crimes against humanity specified in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted on 9 December 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations;
2. (a) the violations specified in Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, (b) any comparable violations of the laws of war having effect at the time when this Convention enters into force and of customs of war existing at that time, which are not already provided for in the above-mentioned provisions of the Geneva Conventions, when the specific violation under consideration is of a particularly grave character by reason either of its factual and intentional elements or of the extent of its foreseeable consequences;
3. any other violation of a rule or custom of international law which may hereafter be established and which the Contracting State concerned considers according to a declaration under Article 6 as being of a comparable nature to those referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 of this article. 
European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, Strasbourg, 25 January 1974, Article 1.

Article 2 of the 1974 European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes provides:
1. The present Convention applies to offences committed after its entry into force in respect of the Contracting State concerned.
2. It applies also to offences committed before such entry into force in those cases where the statutory limitation period had not expired at that time. 
European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, Strasbourg, 25 January 1974, Article 2.

ICC Statute
Article 29 of the 1998 ICC Statute provides: “The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.” 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 29.

Back to top
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Article 7 of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, entitled “Non-applicability of statutory limitations”, provides: “No statutory limitation shall apply to crimes against the peace and security of mankind.” 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 7.

Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 6 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides: “Statutes of limitations shall not apply for prosecuting violations of international human rights and humanitarian law norms that constitute crimes under international law.” 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 6.

Article 7 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides:
Statutes of limitations for prosecuting other violations or pursuing civil claims should not unduly restrict the ability of a victim to pursue a claim against the perpetrator, and should not apply with respect to periods during which no effective remedies exist for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law norms. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 7.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture. Section 17(1) provides that these offences “shall not be subject to any statute of limitations”. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 17(1).

Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL state:
6. Where so provided for in an applicable treaty or contained in other international legal obligations, statutes of limitations shall not apply to gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law which constitute crimes under international law.
7. Domestic statutes of limitations for other types of violations that do not constitute crimes under international law, including those time limitations applicable to civil claims and other procedures, should not be unduly restrictive. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, §§ 6 and 7.

Back to top
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
Any nation may prosecute any person who is suspected of committing a major war crime and no statute of limitation applies for such prosecutions. Trial of a suspected war criminal may take place any time that the individual is located or evidence of a war crimes commission is unearthed. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1307.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states:
Statutes of Limitations
Even though the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols do not specifically address statutes of limitations, it is accepted today on the basis of customary law that all international crimes (the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity [and] war crimes) are not subject to statutes of limitations. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 296, § 662.

Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “The non-applicability of statutory limitations applies to both the prosecution [of war crimes] and the sentence.” 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 109.

Côte d'Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
II.3.2. No statutory limitation for breaches
In the matter of war crimes, the application of statutory limitation is opposed by a large section of the international community, which considers that these breaches, owing to their magnitude and horrific character, continue to provoke public indignation even after decades. Non-application of statutory limitation relates both to prosecution and to punishment.  
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 48.

France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states: “Article 29 of the [1998 ICC Statute] provides that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 45.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides: “War crimes are not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 86.

Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands provides:
War crimes may not become statute-barred (see Article 13 of WIM [the International Criminal Offences Act]). The only exception to this rule is for the most minor category of war crimes, attracting a maximum 10-year prison sentence, as defined in Article 7.1 of WIM. It should be noted that the maximum penalties set for international war crimes are more severe than in ordinary penal law, namely imprisonment for life or up to 30 years, or a Category 6 fine. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1138.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) states that it is “open to two or more belligerents to agree in a peace treaty, or even in a general armistice, that no further war crimes trials will be instituted by them after a certain agreed date or as from the date of the treaty of the armistice”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 641, footnote 1.

United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) provides: “There is no statute of limitations on the prosecution of a war crime.” 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 13.

The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides: “There is no statute of limitations on the prosecution of a war crime.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 6.2.5.3.

Back to top
Albania
Albania’s Military Penal Code (1995) provides that statutory limitations will not apply to war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
Albania, Military Penal Code, 1995, Article 67.

Argentina
Argentina’s Law concerning the Imprescriptibility of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (1995) approved the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. 
Argentina, Law concerning the Imprescriptibility of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, 1995.

Argentina’s Draft Code of Military Justice (1998) provides for the introduction of a new provision in the Code of Military Justice as amended according to which “penal actions with respect to [offences against protected persons and objects in the event of an armed conflict] are not subject to statutory limitations”. 
Argentina, Draft Code of Military Justice, 1998, Article 236, introducing a new Article 601 bis in the Code of Military Justice as amended, 1951.

Argentina’s Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute (2006) states:
The prosecution and punishment of the crimes provided in articles 8, 9 and 10 of this law [genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes], as well as of any other crimes that may eventually fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, are not subject to statutes of limitation. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Article 11.

Armenia
Armenia’s Penal Code (2003) provides that crimes such as “Application of prohibited methods of warfare”, “Serious breaches of international humanitarian law during armed conflict” or genocide are not subject to statutes of limitation. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 75(6).

Austria
Austria’s Penal Code (1974), which provides for possible life imprisonment for, inter alia, acts such as murder (Article 75), specific cases of rape (Article 201(3)) and genocide (Article 321), states: “Acts which are punishable with life imprisonment, or which are punishable with imprisonment for a period between ten and twenty years or life imprisonment, are not subject to statutory limitations.” 
Austria, Penal Code, 1974, Article 57(1).

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) excludes statutory limitations with regard to war crimes. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 75.5.

Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides: “The exoneration from criminal responsibility or punishment … in relation with the expiration of statutory limitation is inapplicable to crimes against peace, [crimes against] the security of mankind and war crimes.” 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 85.

Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides: “Except for penalties involving the offences defined in Articles 136 bis, ter, and quater [grave breaches of IHL], criminal penalties shall be subject to statute of limitation …”. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Article 91.

Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, provides:
Article 21 of the Introductory Part of the Code of Penal Procedure and Article 91 of the Penal Code, relative to the statutory limitation of public prosecutions and penalties, shall not be applicable to the breaches listed in Article 1 of the present Act. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 8.

Article 1 provides for the punishment of the crime of genocide (paragraph 1), crimes against humanity (paragraph 2) and “grave breaches … which cause injury, by act or omission, to persons or objects protected by the [1949 Geneva Conventions] and by Protocols I and II additional to those Conventions” (paragraph 3). 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols as amended, 1993, Article 1(1), (2) and (3).

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states:
Criminal prosecution and execution of a sentence are not subject to the statute of limitations for criminal offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, or for other criminal offences that, pursuant to international law, are not subject to the statute of limitations. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 19.

Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states: “The prosecution and punishment of offences constituting genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes are not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 27.

Colombia
Under Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), the period of limitation for penal action with regard to genocide, forced disappearance, torture and forced displacement is 30 years. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 83.

Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) states that statutes of limitation do not apply with regard to the prosecution and repression of war crimes or with regard to the pronounced penalty. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 14.

Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997) provides:
The non-applicability of the criminal legislation of the Republic of Croatia [because of the statute of limitations] does not apply to the criminal offences of genocide, as referred to in Article 156, a war of aggression, as referred to in Article 157, war crimes, as referred to in Articles 158, 159 and 160 of this Code, or other criminal offences which, pursuant to international law, are not subject to the statute of limitations. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 18(2).

The Code further provides:
No statutory limitation shall apply to the execution of punishment pronounced on a perpetrator of the criminal offence of genocide as specified in Article 156, of a war of aggression as specified in Article 157, of war crimes as specified in Articles 158, 159 and 160 of this Code, or of other criminal offences which, pursuant to international law, are not subject to the statute of limitations. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 24.

Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended in 2006, provides:
The non-applicability of the criminal legislation of the Republic of Croatia [because of the statute of limitations] does not apply to the criminal offences of genocide, as referred to in Article 156, a war of aggression, as referred to in Article 157, war crimes, as referred to in Articles 158, 159 and 160 of this Code, or other criminal offences which, pursuant to international law, are not subject to the statute of limitations.  
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 18(2).

The Criminal Code further provides: “The statutes of limitation shall not apply to execution of the punishment of life imprisonment and of punishments pronounced for the criminal offences specified in Article 18, paragraph 2 of this Code [shown above].” 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 24.

Cuba
Cuba’s Penal Code (1987) states that its provisions regarding statutes of limitation for penal action “do not apply to cases for which the law foresees the death penalty and to crimes against humanity”. 
Cuba, Penal Code, 1987, Article 64(5).

The Code adds that its provisions regarding statutes of limitation for punishment “do not apply with respect to crimes against humanity”. 
Cuba, Penal Code, 1987, Article 65(5).

Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Judiciary Code (2002) provides: “In the following cases, prosecution is not subject to statutory limitations: … war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide”. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Judiciary Code, 2002, Article 204.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides: “In the following cases, prosecution is not subject to statutory limitations: … crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 10.

Estonia
Estonia’s Criminal Code (1992), as amended in 1994, provides that there is no statutory limitation for war crimes. 
Estonia, Criminal Code, 1992, as amended in 1994, Section 53.

Ethiopia
In 1992, the transitional government of Ethiopia adopted the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office Establishment Proclamation which has “the power to conduct investigation and institute proceedings in respect of any person having committed or responsible for the commission of an offence by abusing his position in the party, the government or mass organization under the Derg-WPE [Workers’ Party of Ethiopia] regime”. 
Ethiopia, Special Public Prosecutor’s Office Establishment Proclamation, 1992, Articles 2(1) and 6.

The Proclamation states, inter alia: “The provisions concerning limitation of criminal action and the time limit concerning the submission of charges, evidence and pleading to charges shall not be applicable to proceedings instituted by the Office.” 
Ethiopia, Special Public Prosecutor’s Office Establishment Proclamation, 1992, Article 7(2).

Ethiopia’s Constitution (1994) provides:
There shall be no period of limitation on persons charged with crimes against humanity [i.e. “inhuman punishment, forcible disappearances, summary executions, acts of genocide”] as provided by international conventions ratified by Ethiopia and other laws of Ethiopia. 
Ethiopia, Constitution, 1994, Article 28(1).

France
France’s Penal Code (1994) provides: “The public action with regard to [genocide and “other crimes against humanity”], as well as the sentences imposed [on genocide and “other crimes against humanity”], are not subject to statutory limitations.” 
France, Penal Code, 1994, Article 213(5).

Germany
Under Germany’s Penal Code (1998), genocide and murder are explicitly excluded from the general provisions relative to statutory limitation. 
Germany, Penal Code, 1998, Section 78(2).

Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) provides: “The prosecution of serious criminal offences pursuant to this Act [inter alia, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes] and the execution of sentences imposed on their account shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.” 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1(5).

Hungary
Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, provides that statutory limitations will not apply to war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Article 33(2).

Iraq
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) provides that the crimes stipulated, which include war crimes, “shall not be subject to any statute of limitations”. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 17(4).

Israel
Under Israel’s Criminal Procedure Law (1982), the period of limitation for the most serious crimes is 20 years and for other crimes 10 years. 
Israel, Criminal Procedure Law, 1982, Article 9.

Israel’s Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (1950) provides that there shall be no period of limitation for the crimes dealt with therein (crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity and war crimes). 
Israel, Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 1950, Section 12.

Israel’s Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law (1950) excludes the applicability of the provision of the Penal Code dealing with limitations. 
Israel, Crime of Genocide (Prevention and Punishment) Law, 1950, Section 6.

Jordan
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states: “Statutes of limitation shall not be applicable to public right proceedings in war crimes, nor to penalties prescribed therein.” 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 43.

Lebanon
The Draft Amendments to the Code of Military Justice (1997) of Lebanon, in a part dealing with the punishment of war criminals, provide: “The crimes provided for in this law are not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Lebanon, Draft Amendments to the Code of Military Justice, 1997, Article 149.

Lithuania
Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, provides: “There is no prescription for genocide and war crimes.” 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 49.

Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes (1974) provides: “War crimes … are, by their nature, not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Luxembourg, Law on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes, 1974.

Malaysia
Malaysia’s Armed Forces Act (1972) provides for a general three-year limitation period for offences under service law, except for offences relative to mutiny and desertion. 
Malaysia, Armed Forces Act, 1972, Section 144.

Mali
Mali’s Penal Code (2001) provides: “Any of the crimes provided for under the present title [i.e. crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes] … just as any punishment pronounced in repression of such crimes are not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 32.

Netherlands
According to the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, the expiration of the right to institute criminal proceedings or to impose a sentence, as defined in Articles 70 and 76 of the Penal Code as amended, “shall not apply to the crimes defined in this Act [genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture]”. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 13.

Niger
Niger’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 2003, under a chapter entitled “Crimes against humanity and war crimes” in which it provides for the punishment of a list of offences such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in the meaning of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and both the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II, states: “The prosecution with regard to the crimes set out under this chapter, as well as the penalties pronounced, are not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.8.

Peru
Peru’s Legislative Resolution No. 27998 (2003) ratifies
the “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 26 November 1968 … with the following declaration:
In conformity with Article 103 of its Political Constitution, the State of Peru accedes to the “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity” … with respect to crimes covered by the Convention that have been committed after its entry into force for Peru. 
Peru, Legislative Resolution No. 27998, 2003, Article 1.

Peru’s Presidential Decree No. 082-2003-RE (2003) ratifies
the “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 26 November 1968 and approved by the Congress of the Republic through Legislative Resolution No. 27998 of 2 June 2003, with the following declaration:
In conformity with Article 103 of its Political Constitution, the State of Peru accedes to the “Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity” … with respect to crimes covered by the Convention that have been committed after its entry into force for Peru. 
Peru, Presidential Decree No. 082-2003-RE, 2003, Article 1.

Peru’s Presidential Decree on the National Human Rights Plan (2005) lists as an objective “the modification of domestic law in order to establish the mechanisms necessary to avoid impunity for the commission of international crimes, such as the non-applicability of statutes of limitations … in accord ance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”  
Peru, Presidential Decree on the National Human Rights Plan, 2005, § 3.1.3 A1.

Poland
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) provides for the non-application of statutory limitations to war offences and crimes against peace and humanity. 
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 109.

Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides:
Article 6 (Non-applicability of Statute of Limitations)
Notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 249 to 253, the Military Court Act Articles 291 to 295, and the Criminal Code Articles 77 to 80, [genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes] shall not be subject to any statute of limitations. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 6.

Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Draft Penal Code (1999), under a provision dealing with statutes of limitation for crimes, provides: “The statutes of limitation do not apply with regard to persons having committed crimes against the peace and security of mankind or war crimes.” It also states: “The statutes of limitation do not apply to the principal penalties which are applied with regard to crimes against the security of mankind or to war crimes provided for in this Code.” 
Republic of Moldova, Draft Penal Code, 1999, Articles 61(8) and 95(4).

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Decree on the Punishment of War Criminals (1965) states: “Nazi criminals, guilty of most serious crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes, are subject to prosecution and punishment, irrespective of the time elapsed after the crimes committed.” 
Russian Federation, Decree on the Punishment of War Criminals, 1965.

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (1996), with respect to possible release from criminal responsibility owing to the expiry of statutes of limitation, provides:
The periods of limitation shall not be applied to persons who have committed crimes against peace and the security of mankind, provided for by Articles 353 [planning, preparing, unleashing or waging an aggressive war], 356 [use of banned means and methods of warfare], 357 [genocide] and 358 [ecocide] of this Code. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 78(5).

With respect to possible release from punishment owing to the expiry of the limitation period of the Court’s sentence, the Code provides:
Limitation periods shall not be applicable to persons convicted for the commission of crimes against peace and the security of mankind, provided for by Articles 353 [planning, preparing, unleashing or waging an aggressive war], 356 [use of banned means and methods of warfare], 357 [genocide] and 358 [ecocide] of this Code. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 83(4).

Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law on the Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity (1996) provides: “Prosecutions and penalties for offences constituting the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity are not subject to a limitation period.” 
Rwanda, Law on the Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, 1996, Article 37.

Rwanda’s Law Setting up Gacaca Jurisdictions (2001) provides: “The public action and penalties related to offences of the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity are imprescriptible.” 
Rwanda, Law Setting up Gacaca Jurisdictions, 2001, Article 92.

Rwanda’s Constitution (2003) provides in its Article 13: “The crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes do not have a period of limitation.” 
Rwanda, Constitution, 2003, Article 13.

Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides: “Prosecutions as well as sentences pronounced for the crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are not subject to statutory limitation.” 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 20.

Slovenia
Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994) provides:
Criminal prosecution and the implementation of a sentence shall not be prevented for criminal offences from Articles 373–378 of the Present Code [i.e. genocide; war crimes against the civilian population; war crimes against the wounded and sick; war crimes against prisoners of war; war crimes of use of unlawful weapons; association with and incitement to genocide and war crimes] as well as for criminal offences the prosecution of which may not be prevented under international agreements. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 116.

Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) provides for periods of limitation for military offences punishable thereunder, including offences against the laws and customs of war, and for the penalties imposed for such offences. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Articles 45 and 46.

Spain’s Penal Code (1995) provides: “In no case shall the crime of genocide be subject to statutory limitations.” The same is valid for the punishment imposed therefore. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Articles 131(4) and 133(2).

Periods of limitation are provided for other offences punishable under the Code. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 133.

Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states: “Crimes against humanity and genocide and crimes against persons and property protected in case of armed conflict shall in no case be subject to statutes of limitations.” 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 131(2).

The Penal Code also states: “Penalties imposed for crimes against humanity and genocide and crimes against persons and property protected in case of armed conflict shall in no case be subject to statutes of limitations.” 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 133(4).

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended, provides:
[The following acts] are not subject to statutes of limitation:
1. Crimes aiming at the extermination or oppression of a group of the population because of its nationality, race, religion or because of its ethnic, social or political affiliation;
2. Serious crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and other international agreements relating to the protection of victims of war to which Switzerland is a party, if the offence under examination is particularly serious because of the conditions under which it was committed;
3. Crimes committed with the aim of exercising duress or extortion and which put in danger or threaten to put in danger the life and physical integrity of persons, in particular by the use of means of massive destruction, the triggering of a catastrophe or the taking of hostages. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended, Article 56 bis.

Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), as amended, contains an identical provision. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, as amended, Article 75 bis.

Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended in 2007, states:
[The following acts] are not subject to statutes of limitation:
a. crimes aiming at the extermination or oppression of a group of the population because of its nationality, race, religion or because of its ethnic, social or political affiliation;
b. serious crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and other international agreements relating to the protection of victims of war to which Switzerland is a party, if the offence is particularly serious because of the conditions in which it was committed;
c. crimes committed with the aim of exercising duress or extortion and which put in danger or threaten to put in danger the life and physical integrity of a large number of persons, in particular by using means of massive destruction, by triggering a catastrophe or by taking hostages. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended in 2007, Article 59(1).

Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), as amended in 2009, states:
[The following acts] are not subject to statutes of limitation:
1. Crimes aiming at the extermination or oppression of a group of the population because of its nationality, race, religion or because of its ethnic, social or political affiliation;
2. Serious crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and other international agreements relating to the protection of victims of war to which Switzerland is a party, if the offence under examination is particularly serious because of the conditions under which it was committed;
3. Crimes committed with the aim of exercising duress or extortion and which put in danger or threaten to put in danger the life and physical integrity of persons, in particular by use of means of massive destruction, triggering a catastrophe or taking hostages. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, as amended in 2009, Article 101(1).

Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) provides: “Crimes against the peace and security of mankind are not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Articles 75 and 81.

Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states: “The crimes and punishments set out in Titles I to III of Part II of the present law [i.e. genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes] are not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 7.

Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code (1994) provides that statutory limitations are not applicable to crimes against the peace and security of mankind, including genocide and violations of the laws and customs of war. 
Uzbekistan, Criminal Code, 1994, Articles 64 and 69.

Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1999) provides that statutes of limitation do not apply to war crimes. 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1999, §§ 24 and 56.

Yemen
Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998) states: “With regard to the crimes set out under this chapter [i.e. war crimes], the right to prosecution is not subject to statutes of limitation.” 
Yemen, Military Criminal Code, 1998, Article 22.

Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (1927), as amended in 1974, provides:
(1) The right of prosecution for murder shall not be barred by any lapse of time.
(2) The right of prosecution for any offence other than murder … shall, unless some other period is expressly provided by law, be barred by the lapse of twenty years from the time when the offence was committed. 
Zimbabwe, Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1927, as amended in 1974, Section 23.

Back to top
Argentina
In the Bohne case in 1966, Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice found that in fact there had been no verification that prescription applied to penal action under the laws of the requesting State (Federal Republic of Germany), and that the decision in question remained unchanged even in the light of the argument put forward by the defence to the effect that prescription of penal action for the crimes attributed to the accused applied after 15 years because the case was one of participation in simple homicide. The accused had been requisitioned for widespread and systematic execution of mentally ill persons in 1939 and 1940. 
Argentina, Supreme Court of Justice, Bohne case, 24 August 1966.

In the Schwammberger case in 1989, a magistrate of Argentina’s Cámara Federal de La Plata found the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity to be an indisputable factor in the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes as a principle of international law, and despite the absence of ratification by Argentina, held that Argentina was bound by the principle according to Article 102 of its Constitution. 
Argentina, Cámara Federal de La Plata, Schwammberger case (First Instance), 30 August 1989, Opinion by Dr Schiffrin.

Similarly, another magistrate rejected the position that prescription was covered by Article 18 of the National Constitution. 
Argentina, Cámara Federal de La Plata, Schwammberger case (First Instance), 30 August 1989, Opinion by Dr Garro.

The Attorney-General argued that in the case in question it must be verified whether penal action was not prescribed under the laws of the requesting State (Federal Republic of Germany) rather than the laws of Argentina. 
Argentina, Legal opinion of the Procurator-general of the Nation, Schwammberger case (Legal Opinion), 21 November 1989.

Similarly, in 1990, the Supreme Court found that under German law there was no prescription. 
Argentina, Supreme Court of Justice, Schwammberger case (Supreme Court), 20 March 1990.

In the Priebke case in 1995 dealing with the question of the possible extradition of the accused to Italy for acts committed during the Second World War (Ardeatine caves massacre), Argentina’s Court of Appeal found that, under the terms of Argentine legislation, the charge of homicide was prescribed and therefore the extradition request should be rejected. 
Argentina, Court of Appeal of General Roca, Priebke case (Appeal), 23 August 1995.

The Supreme Court revoked the decision of the Court of Appeal and allowed the extradition, stating that the fact that Priebke was required for trial in Italy established prima facie the crime of genocide “for killing 75 Jews out of 335 dead”. It added that “the classification of offences as crimes against humanity does not depend on whether the requesting or requested States agree with the extradition process, but instead on the principles of jus cogens of international law” and that “there is no prescription for crimes under this law”. 
Argentina, Supreme Court, Priebke case (Supreme Court), 2 November 1995.

One of the Court magistrates referred to the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity and concluded that the Argentine Republic’s practice undeniably contributed to the development of an international custom that favoured the non-applicability of statutory limitations, and that express acceptance of such non-applicability through adherence to or ratification of the Convention was not the only means of determining the existence of jus cogens. In his opinion, Argentina’s Executive and Legislative Branches had already expressed their agreement with the contents of the text, which had already been approved by both the Argentine Senate and House of Deputies. 
Argentina, Supreme Court, Priebke case (Supreme Court), 2 November 1995, Opinion by Dr Bossert.

Other magistrates also found that Priebke’s conduct had all the characteristics of crimes against humanity committed against civilians and prisoners of war in wartime, and that this classification was in line with the principles of jus cogens, and that such crimes were not subject to limitations. 
Argentina, Supreme Court, Priebke case (Supreme Court), 2 November 1995, Opinion by Drs Nazareno and Moliné O’Connor.

However, other judges casting dissenting votes found that, since the crimes were homicides in terms of Article 62 of the Argentine Penal Code, the time limit after which prescription would apply had already elapsed. They found that even if the acts were to be considered crimes against humanity, they would be subject to a period of limitation since the UN Convention had yet to enter into force in Argentina. 
Argentina, Supreme Court, Priebke case (Supreme Court), 2 November 1995, Dissenting vote by Drs Belluscio and Levene.

Chile
In its judgment in the Videla case in 1994 concerning the abduction, torture and murder of a Chilean woman in 1974, Chile’s Appeal Court of Santiago held that the acts charged constituted grave breaches under Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, which it found applicable, and that:
Such offences as constitute grave breaches of the Convention are imprescriptible … the ten-year prescription of legal action in respect of the crimes provided for in Article 94 of the Penal Code cannot apply … Any attempt by a State to tamper with the criminality of and consequent liability for acts which infringe the laws of war and the rights of persons in wartime is beyond the State’s competence while it is a Party to the Geneva Conventions on humanitarian law. 
Chile, Appeal Court of Santiago (Third Criminal Chamber), Videla case, Judgment, 26 September 1994.

In its judgment in the María Barros Perelman case in 2005, Chile’s Court of Appeal of Santiago stated:
[T]the non-applicability of statutory limitations to crimes against humanity stems … from a specific category of norms of general international law (“ius cogens”). [This non-applicability of statutory limitations] is consistent with international legal doctrine and international treaties and has been accepted in the judicial practice of national tribunals of United Nations member states and of international tribunals with jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. 
Chile, Court of Appeal of Santiago, Fifth Chamber, María Barros Perelman case, Case No. 24.471-2005, 5 September 2009, § 11.

The Court also stressed “the binding nature of ‘ius cogens’ or general principles of international law concerning the non-applicability of statutory limitations to crimes against humanity, as clearly and expressly recognized by … the 1949 Geneva Conventions”. 
Chile, Court of Appeal of Santiago, Fifth Chamber, María Barros Perelman case, Case No. 24.471-2005, 5 September 2009, § 15.

The Court concluded:
[T]he prohibition of criminal action under domestic law with respect to crimes against humanity is null and void because the non-applicability of statutory limitations to crimes against humanity is an imperative norm of general international law, which has … been incorporated into constitutional law by way of an international treaties and [prior to this incorporation] was binding as a general principle of international human rights law. 
Chile, Court of Appeal of Santiago, Fifth Chamber, María Barros Perelman case, Case No. 24.471-2005, 5 September 2009, § 19.

In its decision on annulment in the Víctor Raúl Pinto case in 2007, Chile’s Supreme Court stated that “among the characteristics that distinguish … [war crimes], the most notable include the non-applicability of statutes of limitation”. 
Chile, Supreme Court, Criminal Law Chamber, Víctor Raúl Pinto case, Case No. 3125-04, Decision on Annulment, 13 March 2007, § 30.

Ethiopia
In the Mengistu and Others case in 1995 concerning the prosecution and trial of Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam and former members of the Derg for allegedly committing genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes during the former regime between 1974 and 1991, the Special Prosecutor of Ethiopia, in a reply submitted in response to the objection filed by counsels for defendants, stated: “The UN General Assembly, in article 1 of its Resolution on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, has clearly stated that these offences are imprescriptible.” 
Ethiopia, Special Prosecutor’s Office, Mengistu and Others case, Reply submitted in response to the objection filed by counsels for defendants, 23 May 1995, § 6.1.1.

In his conclusions, the Special Prosecutor noted: “It is … a well established custom and belief that war crimes and crimes against humanity are not … barred by limitation.” 
Ethiopia, Special Prosecutor’s Office, Mengistu and Others case, Reply submitted in response to the objection filed by counsels for defendants, 23 May 1995, Conclusion.

France
In the Barbie case in 1984, France’s Court of Cassation held:
The judgment under appeal conforms with the official interpretation of the London Agreement given on 15 June 1979 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was consulted on the occasion of other proceedings but whose opinion on questions relating to international public policy (ordre public international) is of general scope and binding on the judiciary. The Court held that “the only principle with regard to the statutory limitation of prosecution of crimes against humanity which is to be considered as deducible from the Charter of the International Military Tribunal is that prosecution of such crimes is not subject to statutory limitation”. The Court of Appeal stated correctly that, within the meaning of Article 60 of the European Convention on Human Rights, “the right to benefit of statutory limitation of prosecution” cannot constitute a human right or fundamental freedom. The Court of Appeal then referred to Article 7(2) of the Convention, as we ll as to Article 15(2) of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. In fact, neither of these provisions give rise to any derogation or restriction on the rule that prosecution is not subject to statutory limitation. This rule is applicable to crimes against humanity by virtue of the principles of law recognized by the community of nations.  
France, Court of Cassation, Barbie case, Judgment, 26 January 1984.

In a later judgment in the same case, the Court of Cassation held that war crimes, in contrast to crimes against humanity, were subject to the time-limits imposed by statute and stated:
Following the termination of hostilities, it is necessary that the passage of time should be allowed to blur acts of brutality which might have been committed in the course of armed conflict, even if those acts constituted violations of the laws and customs of war or were not justified by military necessity, provided that those acts were not of such a nature as to deserve the qualification of crimes against humanity. There is no principle of law with an authority superior to that of French law which would allow war crimes, either within the meaning of the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 or as defined in the Ordinance of 28 August 1944 which preceded it, to be declared not subject to statutory limitation. 
France, Cour de Cassation, Barbie case, 20 December 1985.

In 1993, in the Boudarel case, the Criminal Law Chamber of France’s Court of Cassation held:
Rejection of the appeal lodged by Wladyslav Sobanski and the National Association of Former Prisoners-Internees of Indochina [Association nationale des anciens prisonniers-internés d’Indochine], civil parties, against the decision of the chambre d’accusation of the Court of Appeal of Paris of 20 December 19991, according to which there are no grounds for holding an investigation into the acts denounced by these civil parties against Georges X. …, under the classification of crimes against humanity.

Whereas it follows from the attacked decision and the documents of the proceedings that Wladyslav Sobanski and the National Association of Former Prisoners-Internees of Indochina, on 3 April 1991, declaring themselves as civil parties, lodged a complaint with the investigating judge of Paris against Georges X. …, on the count of crimes against humanity; whereas they stated that soldiers of the French expeditionary corps in Indochina were made prisoners and detained in northern Vietnam, for periods of variable duration, between October 1952 and August 1954, in an internment camp where Georges X. …, a French national, exercised the functions of political commissar and deputy commander in the ranks of the Viet-Minh; whereas they denounced the persecutions and the inhuman treatment he inflicted on the prisoners, with a view to their political indoctrination which was a condition of their survival, those “past rehabilitation” or “deviationists” being destined to death by malnutrition; whereas the complaint was communicated to the Prosecutor of the Republic who, on 23 May 1991, made requests to refuse the holding of an investigation, based on Article 30 of the law of 18 June 1966, according to which all crimes and offences committed in relation with the events following the Vietnamese insurrection and prior to 1 October 1957 are amnestied ipso iure;
Whereas, by order of 13 September 1991, the investigating judge considered that the acts denounced by the civil parties, supposing they were established, would constitute crimes against humanity, in the sense of Article 6c of the statute of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, annexed to the London Charter of 8 August 1945, and according to the law of 26 December 1964; whereas, due to the supremacy of the international norm over domestic law, they would not only be not subject to statutes of limitation, but also be excluded from the amnesty law of 18 June 1966; whereas the investigating judge has, in consequence, decided to hold an investigation upon these complaints;
Whereas, in order to overturn that order, on the appeal of the public prosecutor, and to hold that there are no grounds for holding an investigation, due to the extinguishing of the public action, the chambre d’accusation states, in particular, that “the offences Georges X. … is reproached with, being related to the events following the Vietnamese insurrection and having been committed prior to 1 October 1957, are envisaged by the amnesty law of 18 June 1966, which does not exclude any crime from its field of application”; whereas the judges add that if the crimes against humanity “included in domestic French law since the law of 26 December 1964, are by their nature not subject to statutes of limitation, the principle of their not being subject to limitation must be interpreted restrictively”; whereas they observe “that, in the absence of an express provision on that point, either under international law or internal law, it therefore cannot be validly supported that a principle of exclusion of amnesty for crimes of humanity has its source in the general philosophy of the inter-Allied London Charter of 8 August 1945 and the statute of the International Military Tribunal”; whereas they deduce that the amnesty must equally apply to crimes against humanity and therefore, under that classification, to the facts with which Georges X. … can be reproached;
Whereas, by thus admitting that the acts with which Georges X. … is reproached could be classified as crimes against humanity, the chambre d’accusation has misread the meaning and the impact of the texts addressed in the appeal;
Whereas, in fact, the provisions of the law of 26 December 1964, and of the statute of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, annexed to the London Charter of 8 August 1945 only concern the acts committed on behalf of the European Axis countries; whereas, in addition, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Tokyo, which was neither ratified nor published in France and which did not enter into the provisions of the law of 26 December 1964 or of the United Nations resolution of 13 February 1946, in its Article 5 only envisages the acts of violence committed by the Japanese war criminals or their accomplices; whereas, thus, the acts denounced by the civil parties, subsequent to World War II, were not suitable for receiving the classification of crimes against humanity in the sense of the texts cited above;
Whereas, however, despite the error of law committed, the attacked decision is not censured, since the Court of Cassation is able to assure itself that the acts with which Georges X. … is reproached, however they could be classified under common law, necessarily come under the field of application of Article 30 of the law of 18 June 1966 on amnesty for all acts committed in relation with the events following the Vietnamese insurrection;
From which follows that the end of the public action was rightly declared and that, the refusal to hold an investigation being justified, the appeal cannot be received. 
France, Court of Cassation, Boudarel case, Appeal Nr. 92-82273, Judgment, 1 April 1993.

Hungary
In Decision No. 53/1993, the Constitutional Court of Hungary stated:
1. In the application of article 33 § (2) of Law IV of 1978 on Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code”) it is a constitutional requirement that the non-applicability of statutory limitations may only be determined with respect to those criminal offenses which have not lapsed according to Hungarian law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense; except if international law classifies the offense as a war crime or crime against humanity, declares or makes possible the non-applicability of statutory limitations, and Hungary has assumed the obligation by international law to preclude the applicability of statutory limitations.
2. The Constitutional Court holds that it is consistent with the Constitution if article 33 § (2) of the Penal Code is applied without regard to the Hungarian statutory limitations in effect at the time of the commission of the following offenses defined by international law:
- “Grave violations of rights” as defined by the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, concluded in Geneva on August 12, 1949, applied to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, as determined by common article 2 of the Geneva Conventions, concluded on August 12, 1949;
- prohibited acts in the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, international in character, as determined by common Article 3. 
Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary, Decision No. 53/1993, 13 October 1993, Resolution.

The Court further stated:
No international legal document defining international substantive or procedural law contains any time limitation on prosecution and punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity. But in the aftermath of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, several countries prosecuted war crimes on the basis of their domestic law, and with the approach of the expiration of the statute of limitations, domestic statutory measures were taken to extend or suspend the statute of limitation, or to authorize its non-applicability. The aim of the 1968 New York Convention (Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, 754 U.N.T.S. 73) was precisely the termination of the uncertainties and randomness associated with various domestic laws when the Convention declared that the war crimes and crimes against humanity enumerated therein “do not lapse irrespective of the date of their commission” … From the Convention’s preamble it is evident that war crimes and crimes against humanity, on the one hand, and “ordinary criminal acts,” on the other hand, cannot be treated in an identical manner.
The New York Convention came into being at a period when the ideal of the “collective” international prosecution of crimes against humanity was receding into the background. The Convention’s signatory states assume the obligation to “preclude the application of statutory limitations, or to repeal them where they exist, for the punishment” … of enumerated war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Article 7 § (2) of the European Convention and article 15 § (2) of the International Convention [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] permit in principle for signatory states not to apply the domestic statutory limitations for crimes defined by the community of nations. In contrast, the New York Convention replaces this permissive provision with a mandatory one. Moreover, the New York Convention is retroactive.
The New York Convention was ratified basically only by the so-called Third World countries (or “developing countries”) and the then socialist states. But this fact, which can be traced to then prevailing political conditions, did not make the regulation of the non-applicability of statutory limitations any less topical. In 1974, the Council of Europe prepared and opened for signature the European Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The scope of this Convention, in addition to covering the crimes against humanity enumerated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the war-time violations defined by the Geneva Conventions, also extended to “any similar violation” of the right of war, but no such extension (“any similar violation”) was applied with respect to crimes against humanity. The non-applicability of statutory limitations is applied prospectively, for activities committed subsequent to the Convention’s entry into force in the signatory state. Retroactivity is permitted only where the statute of limitation has not yet expired; that is the European Convention only permits an extension of the statute of limitation. The Convention was ratified only by Holland (1981) and was signed, in addition to Holland, only by France (1974) and Belgium (1984). The majority of European states solved the non-applicability of statutory limitations for war crimes by resorting to domestic law. 
Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary, Decision No. 53/1993, 13 October 1993, Reasoning, Part IV, § 4.

In addition, the Court stated:
3. Those international conventions and documents which define war crimes and crimes against humanity, and which are undoubtedly part of the generally recognized and unconditionally applied rules of international law, do not regulate the statute of limitation. For this reason, those states which prosecute these crimes on the basis of international law may apply their own domestic penal laws concerning the statute of limitation and are not compelled to declare that their statutory limitations may never expire. The 1968 New York Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations for the punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as the 1974 European Convention addressing a similar subject matter, may not be regarded as part of customary international law or a generally recognized principle of international law. But those states which ratified either one of the two conventions assumed the international obligation to declare, even with retroactive force, that the statutes of limitation may never expire with respect to the war crimes and crimes against humanity enumerated in the conventions.
With Law I of 1971, Hungary proclaimed the New York Convention. With this proclamation it not only assumed the international obligation concerning the non-applicability of statutory limitations, but also recognized the broader concept of the crimes against humanity than is “generally” recognized by international law. This is so, as according to the Convention apartheid and exile by use of armed force or occupation is also deemed to constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.
In deciding the question whether the obligation assumed by the Convention is to be given the same weight by article 57 § (4) than the general rules of international law, what matters is that the rules of non-applicability of statutory limitations are closely related to the nature of war crimes and crimes against humanity and that in this regard we may characterize the development of international law as a still clear, but yet not concluded process. International law itself does not contain any regulation of the statute of limitation. The New York Convention – according to its preamble – merely renders unequivocal this international legal situation and concurrently makes it impossible for signatory states to apply domestic statutory limitations to the punishment of c ertain crimes. Thus the Convention extends the defining characteristic of the international legal regulation of these criminal offenses – the rendering of prosecution and punishment independent of domestic substantive law – to procedural law as well, that is, to the period during which prosecution and punishment may be initiated. If with respect to the fundamental question – the giving effect of sui generis international legal conditions alongside with domestic law – the answer given is that unconstitutionality has not arisen, then this verdict perforce applies to this collateral or auxiliary assumption of an obligation of the same nature. In its 11/1992 (III.5.) AB resolution, the Constitutional Court interpreted uniformly all the constitutional conditions on the imposition of domestic law’s criminal liability. The Constitutional Court proceeded the same way with respect to international law’s criminal liability as well.
4. Constitutionalism demands that only international penal rules and regulations be given effect concerning the definitions and conditions contained in international law.

The Constitutional Court points out that the New York Convention of 1968 imposes the non-applicability of statutory limitations requirement not only on those behaviours prohibited under the Geneva Conventions which qualify as “grave violations of rights”. Article I (a) of the New York Convention – upon whose “consideration” the Law mandates the application of article 33 § (2) of the Penal Code – does, indeed, refer to “grave violations of rights,” but as an example of the war crimes defined by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. According to article I, “independent of their commission, the statutes of limitations of the following criminal offenses do not lapse: a) the war crimes defined by the August 8, 1945, Charter of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, especially those which are enumerated as ‘grievous violations of rights’.

… [T]he statute of limitation for the punishment of the activities enumerated in common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not expire … in case these offenses do not fall within the category of war crimes defined by article I (a) of the New York Convention – either with respect to the scope of protected persons or because of the manner of the commission of the act – they would be unavoidably covered by the non-applicability of statutory limitations requirement imposed by article I (b) of the Convention on crimes against humanity.
c) The Constitutional Court also calls attention to the fact that the retroactive non-applicability of statutory limitations contained in the New York Convention applies exclusively to criminal offenses defined by international law and enumerated in the New York Convention. In this way they are distinguished from the similarly defined criminal offenses of domestic law … The Constitutional Court points out that the appropriateness of classifying a specific criminal offense a war crime or crime against humanity is, in the last instance, supervised by the community of nations, in the event those cases are submitted to international human rights committees or tribunals. 
Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary, Decision No. 53/1993, 13 October 1993, Reasoning, Part V, §§ 3-4.

In 1996, the Constitutional Court of Hungary held that the provision of Hungary’s Penal Code on the imprescriptibility of war crimes and crimes against humanity could only be applied to grave breaches in international conflicts and prohibited acts under common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary, Judgment No. 36/1996, 4 September 1996.

Iraq
In its judgment in the Al-Dujail case in 2006, the Iraqi High Tribunal stated:
However, Article One of the conventions of non-prescription of war crimes and crimes against humanity in 1968 settled this matter as follows:
“No prescription (time limitation) shall apply to the following crimes regardless of the time of their perpetration”, for it is stated in article 2/b of the same convention what follows:
“Crimes committed against humanity whether in peace or war, and as defined in the basic regulations of the Nuremburg Military Tribunal issued on 8/August/1945 etc.”
A dispute was raised regarding the extent to which the prescription of the previous crime can be considered as part of international customary law. However, most of the jurisprudence says that these crimes have become related to the codes of commanding international law and therefore they shall not be liable to time limitations, but any country is permitted to have recourse to the global concept of international specialization to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes, regardless of the time and date of committing them and the law of the Iraqi criminal court has affirmed this point of view, for article 17/First, stated the invalidity of the prescription that drops a penal lawsuit on crimes included the court specialization as stipulated in articles 11, 12 and 13 therein.
Despite our admission that Iraq has not ratified any non-prescription convention of war crimes and crimes against humanity before or after 1982, and that the provisions of article 17/First legalized first the issue of the Specialized Iraqi Court law in 2003 and then the Iraqi High Tribunal law in 2005, however, as long as we believe that most of international conventions, especially those legalized (general international agreements), were in fact codifications of obligatory previous international custom, therefore we see that Iraq is obliged by it if it was not considered a general international convention (legal) then at least it includes obligatory customary codes. 
Iraq, Iraqi High Tribunal, Trial Chamber, Al-Dujail case, Judgment, 5 November 2006, Part I, p. 44, and Part II, p. 1, based on a translation available at http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/dujail/opinion.asp (last accessed on 1 April 2010).

Italy
At the Trial of First Instance in the Priebke case in 1996, Italy’s Military Tribunal of Rome held that the criminal prosecution prescribed period of 20 years had elapsed. The charge laid against the accused was “violence and murder of Italian citizens” under Italy’s Military Criminal Code, a war crime but not a crime against humanity according to the Tribunal. Since the sentence would not be life imprisonment – the only crimes (with crimes against humanity and genocide) not subject to limitation under Italian law – the Tribunal held that the prosecution was prescribed. However, this verdict was annulled by the Supreme Court of Cassation, which ordered a new trial. 
Italy, Military Tribunal of Rome, Priebke case, Judgment (Trial of First Instance), 1 August 1996; Supreme Court of Cassation, Priebke case, Judgment (Cancelling Verdict of First Instance), 15 October 1997.

At the Trial of First Instance in the Hass and Priebke case in 1997, Italy’s Military Tribunal of Rome held that the charge was both a war crime and a crime against humanity and that, under Italian law and under customary international law (which prevailed over national law), they were not subject to limitations. 
Italy, Military Tribunal of Rome, Hass and Priebke case, Judgment (Trial of First Instance), 22 July 1997.

The Military Court of Appeals, as well as the Supreme Court of Cassation, confirmed this judgment in the relevant parts. 
Italy, Military Appeals Court, Hass and Priebke case, Judgment (Trial of Second Instance), 7 March 1998; Supreme Court of Cassation, Hass and Priebke case, Judgment (Trial of Third Instance), 16 November 1998.

Switzerland
In the Spring case in 2001 dealing with the claim of an Auschwitz survivor against the Swiss Confederation for compensation for having been handed over, in November 1943, to German troops by Swiss border guards, Switzerland’s Federal Court, in the part of the judgment concerning the question whether the right to compensation was barred by statutes of limitation, referred to Article 75(1) bis of the Swiss Penal Code and Article 56 bis of the Swiss Military Criminal Code as amended and stated that these provisions excluded the applicability of statutes of limitation to, inter alia, genocide and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions or other international agreements on the protection of victims of war if the offence was particularly serious given the circumstances. However, the Federal Court pointed out that Article 75 bis of the Swiss Penal Code had been adopted under the premise that the provision be applicable “only if the prosecution of the crime or the punishment was not yet barred by statutes of limitation under the then applicable law at the time of the coming into force of this change” and that this would not be valid only for the cases of extradition and other forms of international cooperation in criminal matters. As to the alleged punishable act – the claimant referring, inter alia, to complicity in genocide – the Court stated that, if the handing over of the claimant to the German authorities should in fact be relevant under penal law, the relevant acts would, at the time of the coming into force of Article 75 bis of the Swiss Penal Code in 1983, have been barred by absolute statutes of limitation, which would be the reason why the applicant could not deduce a right in his favour from the principle that statutes of limitation under penal law can also be applicable to the right under civil law. 
Switzerland, Federal Court, Spring case, Judgment, 21 January 2001.

United States of America
The Agent Orange case in 2005 involved a class action suit filed on behalf of various Vietnamese nationals and an organization, The Vietnamese Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin (“VAVAO”), against Dow Chemical and other US chemical manufacturers, for harms allegedly done to them and their land through the United States’ use of Agent Orange and other herbicides during the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1971 and by the South Vietnamese government’s subsequent use of such herbicides until 1975. In dismissing the claims, the Court found that, while recognizing the evolution of international law since 1975, the use of herbicides did not violate, at the time they were used, either customary or conventional international law binding on the United States. With regard to statutes of limitation, the Court stated:
The principle of non-applicability of statutory limitations to certain violations of international law has been recognized in international instruments. The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity provides that “[n]o statutory limitations period shall apply” to war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, Nov. 26, 1968, art. 1, 754 U.N.T.S. 73, 75 (entered into force Nov. 11, 1970); see also Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“Rome Statute”), July 17, 1998, arts. 5, 29, U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 183/9 (1998) (entered into force July 1, 2002) (“The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court [(i.e., genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ‘the crime of aggression’)] shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.”). Although the United States is not a signatory to either the United Nations Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity or the Rome Statute, these instruments suggest the need to recognize a rule under customary international law that no statute of limitations should be applied to war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
United States, Eastern States District Court (EDNY), Agent Orange case, Judgment, 28 March 2005, pp. 97–98.

Back to top
Belgium
On the occasion of a possible request for the extradition of a Belgian national from Spain for acts committed during the Second World War, it was noted in the Commission of Justice of the Belgian parliament that Belgium did not want to ratify the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity because it could be applied to acts committed before its entry into force, in contradiction with general principles of Belgian penal law. Belgium would, however, be willing to ratify the 1974 European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes since it only applied to acts for which the limitation period had not elapsed. 
Belgium, House of Representatives, Commission of Justice, Debates on a proposal for a resolution on the request for extradition of the war criminal Léon Degrelle and on the ratification of the 1974 European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1982–1983 Session, Débats parlementaires, Chambre, Vol. 540, No. 2, pp. 6–9, reprinted in part in RBDI, Vol. 19, 1986, pp. 463–464.

In an explanatory memorandum submitted to the Belgian Senate in 1991 in the context of the adoption procedure of the Draft Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (as amended), the Belgian government noted that the principle of the non-application of statutory limitations to war crimes was now generally accepted and that several States had modified their legislation in accordance with the principle. It referred to the UN and European Conventions on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, although Belgium had ratified neither of them at the time.  
Belgium, Senate, Explanatory Memorandum, Draft Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1990–1991 Session, Doc. 1317-1, 30 April 1991, p. 16.

Brazil
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who had committed crimes against humanity, the representative of Brazil stated: “The principle of non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity was a new principle for many countries, including his own, where the law recognized statutory limitations in criminal matters.” 
Brazil, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1547, 12 December 1967, § 28.

Bulgaria
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who had committed crimes against humanity, the representative of Bulgaria stated:
He was convinced of the need to adopt a convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes in order to prevent new crimes … In resolution 1158 (XLI) the Economic and Social Council had urged all States to take “any measures necessary to prevent the application of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity”. The Committee’s task was therefore very simple and essentially a technical one: it had to adopt a convention which was of the nature of a declaration and brought together principles that already existed in international law. Statutory limitation with respect to war crimes did not exist in Bulgaria, nor in the legislation of many countries … Although statutory limitation was known in the domestic law of many countries, it had always been very controversial, and in some countries applied to some crimes but not to others. All international documents dealing with international criminal law, moreover, pass over the question of the non-applicability of statutory limitation in silence … No moral considerations could justify the application of statutory limitation to such crimes … What should be done … was to take all necessary measures to confirm a principle which already existed in international law. 
Bulgaria, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1518, 17 November 1967, § 5.

Chile
In 1968, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of Chile stated:
His country had voted in favour of the draft convention [on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity] because it considered it essential to adopt an instrument establishing the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
Chile, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1568, 10 October 1968, § 29.

Congo
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the Congo stated: “There could be no statutory limitation in the case of war crimes and crimes against humanity.” 
Congo, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1518, 17 November 1967, § 21.

Côte d'Ivoire
In 1968, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Côte d’Ivoire stated:
It was particularly important, by adopting a convention, to embody in international law the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity at a time when the policy of aggression, intervention and hegemony pursued by certain countries was giving rise to new crimes of that kind in various parts of the world. He would therefore support any steps aimed at ensuring that such crimes were punished. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1568, 10 October 1968, § 6.

Cyprus
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Cyprus stated:
The last paragraph of the preamble and article I of the [preliminary draft convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity], as well as Economic and Social Council resolution 1158 (XLI), took it for granted that the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity was a principle. If, however, the new notion of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes was, as a necessary evil, made applicable to the past, it would not be possible to speak of a principle; whereas it was elevated to the status of a principle by a process of creating international law, it would be difficult to understand why certain offences against property, included in the available definition of war crimes, should be considered of such gravity as to be exempt from statutory limitation, while more serious crimes at the national level were subject to limitation. Statements that the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes became a principle because there was no statutory limitation in international law were inadmissible; for the absence of any provision on that point did not mean that the principle was accepted or recognized. 
Cyprus, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1516, 15 November 1967, § 15.

In a later meeting on the same issue in 1967, the representative of Cyprus stated:
23. … There had indeed been no precise definition of [the crimes such as those committed during the Second World War] in international law at the time when they were committed, nor had there been any provision relating to the applicability or non-applicability of the rules of statutory limitation. The absence of any reference to that in international law was regarded by some as proof of the existence of the principle of the non-applicability in international law. In his opinion, that was not the case, for international law was not yet as developed as domestic law, and it was to the characteristics and weaknesses of international law that its silence on that point was due …

25. While the principle of statutory limitation was well established in domestic criminal law, the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity, on the other hand, did not constitute an established principle of international law. 
Cyprus, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1518, 17 November 1967, §§ 23 and 25.

Czechoslovakia
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of Czechoslovakia stated:
35. … Her government fully supported the drafting of a binding legal instrument which would incorporate the principle of non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

37. … To apply statutory limitation to [war crimes and crimes against humanity] would be contrary to the provisions of the international instruments which she had mentioned [i.e. the 1945 London Agreement, the 1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg) and UN General Assembly resolutions 3 (I), 95 (I) and 170 (II)] and to the spirit of the [1943 Moscow Declaration] … A number of countries, including the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, had enacted legislation under which, in accordance with the rules of international law, statutory limitation did not apply to persons who had committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. Czechoslovakia’s Act No. 184, adopted in 1964, was based on the principles of international law and was aimed at assuring the Czechoslovak people … that no war criminal would escape punishment. It embodied the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity, a principle which had more recently been confirmed by resolution 3 (XXI) of the [UN] Commission on Human Rights and resolution 1158 (XLI] of the Economic and Social Council and by the study submitted by the Secretary-General …
38. … The principle of non-applicability of statutory limitation was universally recognized as constituting one of the fundamental principles of international law …
39. … The non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity followed directly from international law … [C]onsequently, the application to such crimes of the rules of domestic law concerning statutory limitation would constitute a flagrant violation of the principles of international law. 
Czechoslovakia, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1514, 14 November 1967, §§ 35–39.

In a later meeting of the Third Committee on the same issue in 1968, Czechoslovakia stated: “The non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity constituted a valid and acknowledged principle of international law.” 
Czechoslovakia, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1567, 10 October 1968, § 22.

Egypt
Upon signature of the 1998 ICC Statute, Egypt declared:
The Arab Republic of Egypt declares that the principle of the non-retroactivity of the jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to articles 11 and 24 of the Statute, shall not invalidate the well established principle that no war crime shall be barred from prosecution due to the statute of limitations. 
Egypt, Declarations made upon signature of the ICC Statute, 26 December 2000, § 5.

El Salvador
In 2002, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, El Salvador stated:
[T]o ensure that the crimes of torture, genocide and [en]forced disappearance do not go unpunished, the Criminal Code [of El Salvador] establishes the imprescriptibility of criminal action and of the penalties resulting from the commission of such crimes, provided that their commission was initiated after the entry into force of the Code. 
El Salvador, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 22 October 2003, UN Doc. CRC/65/Add.25, submitted 10 July 2002, § 165.

France
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, France stated:
While the statutory limitation of crimes was a principle of domestic law, the very nature of war crimes, as defined in the [1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg)], made it inapplicable to them; that had been recognized by France by the Act of 26 December 1964, and was a tenet which should be recognized at the international level, with retroactivity as an essential corollary, for without it the non-applicability of statutory limitation would be meaningless. 
France, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1515, 15 November 1967, § 19.

In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
Concerning the non-applicability of statutory limitations to crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC, this principle provided for in the Rome Statute applies to proceedings before the Court. In French law, the rule of statutory limitations is applied to public prosecution with the exception only of certain crimes which particularly shock collective conscience and are inalienable by their nature. This is the case of crimes against humanity, which cover genocide in domestic law … Without relativizing it, war crimes have a different logic. This is the reason why the government considered it was desirable to keep the non-applicability of statutory limitations as an exception so [as] to avoid trivializing the category of crimes against humanity taking into account their exceptional gravity … Nevertheless, being concerned about the need to take into consideration the specificity of war crimes, the government provided an extension of the applicable periods of limitation.  
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to parliamentary written question No. 59178, Journal officiel de la République française, 27 October 2009, p. 10166.

German Democratic Republic
In 1981, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly in relation to the 1954 ILC Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the German Democratic Republic stated: “The draft code should include a clear provision on the non-applicability of the statute of limitations to such offences.” 
German Democratic Republic, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/36/SR.60, 26 November 1981, § 26.

Greece
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of Greece stated:
12. … The non-applicability of statutory limitation to [war crimes and crimes against humanity] was said to be a principle of international law which the [preliminary draft convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity] only affirmed. Hence the subtitle of article I of the draft convention: “Affirmation of the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity”. What was actually involved, in her delegation’s opinion, was a new legal concept …

15. … The convention before the Committee did not meet current needs: society no longer felt the same resentment towards crimes committed twenty or thirty years ago, and the criminals who had committed those crimes were no longer the same men. They should therefore have the benefit of statutory limitation, particularly since limitation statutes applying to crimes committed in time of peace extended to even the most hideous crimes …

19. It was thus inadvisable to exclude war crimes from statutory limitation. 
Greece, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1515, 15 November 1967, §§ 12–19.

In a later meeting on the same issue in 1967, Greece stated:
The draft convention before the Committee [on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity] was intended to establish a new principle, the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
Greece, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1547, 12 December 1967, § 5.

Honduras
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Honduras stated:
War criminals should have the benefit of statutory limitation for humanitarian reasons. Many countries’ constitutions established that principle and made it part of their law … It was … reasonable that when the period of statutory limitation expired [a war criminal] should gain a certain degree of relief. 
Honduras, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1547, 12 December 1967, § 7.

Hungary
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Hungary stated:
21. … The recent adoption … in the Federal Republic of Germany of an Act under which statutory limitation would be applied to war crimes was a setback to the development of international law …
22. It was impossible to accept the arguments of those who favoured the application of statutory limitation to war crimes on the grounds that that principle was recognized in domestic legislation, for it was not ordinary crimes that were in question … Legal technicalities could not … be allowed to prevent the punishment of those who were responsible for war crimes and still not been brought to justice … The Hungarian Government had therefore established the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes by legislation decree, in 1964. 
Hungary, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1516, 15 November 1967, §§ 21–22.

India
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, India stated that its legislation did not provide for statutory limitation in the case of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and that:
It was in the light of that legislation that her delegation had voted in the [UN] Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council in favour of the resolution requesting the principle that there would be no period of limitation for war crimes and crimes against humanity … She would like to reiterate her delegation’s view that since that principle was not yet universally recognized the elaboration of an international convention on the matter would help to promote uniformity in national legislations. 
India, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1516, 15 November 1967, §§ 1–2.

Israel
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of Israel stated:
The Government of Israel had no difficulty in accepting the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which was consistent with its legislation on the matter … As his delegation had stated at the 874th meeting of the [UN] Commission on Human Rights, on 24 March 1966, the principle was an established principle of international law and corresponded to a need of the international community. Since the draft convention [on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity] restated that principle in more formal terms, it could be accepted. 
Israel, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1547, 12 December 1967, § 1.

Italy
In 1968, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Italy stated that it “favoured the adoption of a convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes”. 
Italy, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1568, 10 October 1968, § 34.

Norway
In 1971, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Norway stated that “it could not accept the principle of non-applicability of statutory limitations”. 
Norway, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1902, 9 December 1971, § 80.

Peru
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Peru stated:
It would … be advisable to find a legal formula which combined respect for the principles of statutory limitation and non-retroactivity with the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity. His delegation thought that a happy balance would be struck if the [draft] Convention [on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity] were made applicable only to future cases. 
Peru, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1517, 16 November 1967, § 3.

Poland
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Poland stated:
17. The preliminary draft convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity … which the Committee had before it deserved its support …
18. The principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity, which was one of the basic principles of international law, was properly formulated, confirmed and sanctioned in the preamble to the preliminary draft convention. The responsibility of war criminals and of persons guilty of crimes against humanity was defined by instruments of international law where application of statutory limits was not provided for. The judgment of the International Military Tribunal of Nürnberg had not been an arbitrary decision by the victorious Powers: it had been an application of international law already in force on 8 August 1945, when the charter of the Tribunal had been adopted. The responsibility of war criminals and of persons guilty of crimes against humanity was based on instruments and principles of international law which took precedence over any country’s domestic laws. National legislation therefore could not apply statutory limitation to crimes which international law specifically excluded from such limitation. Many States whose internal legislation provided for such limitation in respect of offences under the ordinary law had borne that out by reaffirming the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes.

25. No one seemed to question the basic principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes. The crimes committed during the Second World War had been particularly barbarous and cruel, and the memory of the millions of victims of the Nazi terror made it imperative to adopt all necessary measures so that those who had perpetrated the crimes would not go unpunished. 
Poland, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1514, 14 November 1967, §§ 17–25.

Romania
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of Romania stated:
War crimes and crimes against humanity, because of their exceptional gravity, must be given special treatment. Her delegation therefore supported the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to such crimes. 
Romania, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1547, 12 December 1967, § 4.

Sweden
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Sweden stated:
18. … Statutory limitation applied in Sweden to all kinds of crimes, from the most petty to the gravest … The statutory limitation on [the most serious crimes punished by life imprisonment] was fixed at twenty-five years from the date on which the crime was committed. The principle of statutory limitation had been recognized in his country for more than 150 years and was an integral part of the Swedish Penal Code. His government therefore had no intention of renouncing that principle with regard to a certain category of crimes, even if they were war crimes or crimes against humanity …
19. Since that was the case, his Government had no intention of acceding to the convention adopted by the Committee. He felt that, except as regarded those States which became parties to the [draft] convention [on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity], there was no principle of international law which sanctioned the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
Sweden, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1549, 13 December 1967, §§ 18–19.

Ukraine
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the Ukraine stated:
The Committee’s task was not to establish a new system of judicial procedure, but to confirm in a multilateral international treaty a generally recognized principle of international law, namely, the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity … Statutory limitation … was of an exceptional nature and could only apply when the law so indicated. War crimes and crimes against humanity did not come in the category of ordinary crimes and because of the social dangers involved the principle of statutory limitation was not equally applicable to them. 
Ukraine, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1517, 16 November 1967, § 5.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the USSR stated:
6. In the whole history of criminal law there had never been a code or law envisaging the monstrous crimes committed by the Nazis. There could accordingly be no question of fixing a period of limitation for such crimes. It should also be noted that modern international law did not recognize the institution of statutory limitation. On the contrary, international law affirmed the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity, and honest people the world over hoped that the United Nations would enshrine that principle in an international instrument, a convention. It was therefore the duty of the United Nations to draw up such a convention without delay
7. … The [UN] Secretary-General’s earlier study “Question of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity” … based on the relevant international instruments, national legislation, the doctrines of international law and international practice, clearly demonstrated the existence of the legal principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity … That the principle in question was not unknown in international law was demonstrated by various important documents, such as the London Declaration of 13 January 1942, the [1943 Moscow Declaration], the Potsdam Agreements of 1945, the [1945 London Agreement], the [1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg)] and the [1946 IMT Charter (Tokyo)] … The same principle was embodied in various United Nations documents, including General Assembly resolutions 3 (I), 95 (I) and 170 (II), and it was not merely a fortuitous circumstance that none of them mentioned the possibility of statutory limitation in respect of such crimes.
8. The same principle of international law found expression in the domestic legislation of many countries – Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, Poland, France, Hungary, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, among others. It was also embodied in the domestic legislation of the Soviet Union; a decree by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union dated 4 March 1965 stipulated that war crimes and crimes against humanity were not subject to statutory limitation.
9. Her delegation considered that such precedents indicated quite clearly that the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes had long been established and recognized in international law. 
USSR, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1516, 15 November 1967, §§ 6–9.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of the United Kingdom stated:
As her Government had explained in its reply to the [UN] Secretary-General’s questionnaire, there was no prescription or statute of limitation under the criminal law of the United Kingdom which would preclude persons from being tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity because of the date on which the crime was committed. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1518, 17 November 1967, § 14.

In a later meeting on the same issue, the representative of the United Kingdom stated:
30. … Her Government was in favour of a convention to the effect that no statutory limitation should apply to war crimes and crimes against humanity irrespective of the date of their commission …

34. Her delegation was … in favour of a general definition [of war crimes and crimes against humanity] and suggested that article I [of the draft convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity] should be replaced by the following text:
“No statutory limitation shall apply to war crimes of a grave nature and to crimes against humanity as defined in international law, irrespective of the date of their commission”. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1547, 12 December 1967, §§ 30 and 34.

United States of America
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of the United States stated:
Her delegation supported the basic human rights objectives sought through the adoption of a convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to the kinds of crimes of which Nazi criminals were prosecuted and convicted at Nürnberg, namely war crimes and crimes against humanity and would co-operate with other delegations which wished to approach the question in a constructive manner. 
United States, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1517, 16 November 1967, § 9.

In 1977, in reply to a question from the Embassy of France, the US Department of State stated:
It is the view of the United States Government that neither the [1945 London Agreement], with the [1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg)] annexed, nor [the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10] … contain any provisions setting a time limit for prosecution or punishment. The United States further regards [the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10] as revoking the benefits of any statute of limitation in respect of the period specified; and in light of the absence of any provision to the contrary, the offenses covered in these instruments are considered not to be subject to limitation concerning their prosecution and punishment.
United States Federal law contains no statute of limitations on war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
United States, Department of State, Note addressed to the Embassy of France, 19 May 1977, Department of State File No. P77 0090-522, reprinted in John A. Boyd, Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1977, US Department of State Publication 8960, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. 927.

In 1991, in a diplomatic note to Iraq, the United States stated:
The Government of the United States reminds the Government of Iraq that under International Law, violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925, or related International Laws of armed conflict are war crimes, and individuals guilty of such violations may be subject to prosecution at any time, without any statute of limitations. This includes members of the Iraqi armed forces and civilian government officials. 
United States, Department of State, Diplomatic Note to Iraq, Washington, 19 January 1991, annexed to Letter dated 21 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22122, 21 January 1991, Annex I, p. 2.

In another such diplomatic note, the United States reiterated that “Iraqi individuals who are guilty of … war crimes … are personally liable and subject to prosecution at any time”. 
United States, Department of State, Diplomatic Note to Iraq, Washington, 21 January 1991, annexed to Letter dated 22 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22130, 21 January 1991, p. 4.

Uruguay
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of Uruguay stated:
Under Uruguayan legislation, statutory limitation would be applied to all crimes, the period of limitation depending on the severity of the punishment. He recognized, however, that in the present instance, since international law prevailed over domestic law, war crimes and crimes against humanity could be excluded from the range of applicability of the rules regarding statutory limitation, or at least that the periods of limitation could be prolonged in the case of such crimes. 
Uruguay, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1518, 17 November 1967, § 12.

Venezuela
In 1968, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Venezuela stated that it “had no difficulty in recognizing the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity”. 
Venezuela, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1568, 10 October 1968, § 4.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the representative of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated:
27. … Yugoslavia, like many other countries, was most anxious to see all those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity punished, without exception, and to see the adoption of an international convention which would reaffirm once again, the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity, ensuring that all States would acknowledge and respect that principle …
28. Although the principle of the non-applicability of statutory limitation to prosecution and punishment for war crimes [and crimes] against humanity had been universally accepted since the end of the Second World War, some countries had not yet adapted their legislation to that principle … His delegation … considered that the adoption of a convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to the prosecution and punishment of those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity was an urgent necessity and a duty.

34. In his delegation’s view, there should be no particular difficulty in adopting the convention [on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity], for it would merely be a solemn reaffirmation of principles which, since the Second World War, had already become positive norms of international law and should therefore prompt all States to adapt their national legislation to positive international law. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1514, 14 November 1967, §§ 27–34.

Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
In 1993, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General concerning the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated: “War crimes … are not subject to the statute of limitations.” 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Letter dated 17 May 1993 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/48/170*-S/25801*, 21 May 1993, p. 2.

Zaire
In 1967, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, Zaire stated that it “welcomed with enthusiasm the principle of non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity”. 
Zaire, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1518, 17 November 1967, § 1.

Back to top
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1967 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly:
Noting that none of the solemn declarations, instruments or conventions relating to prosecution and punishment for war crimes and crimes against humanity makes provision for a period of limitation,

Noting that the application to war crimes and crimes against humanity of the rules of municipal law relating to the period of limitation for ordinary crimes is a matter of serious concern to world public opinion, since it prevents the prosecution and punishment of persons responsible for those crimes,
Recognizing that it is necessary and timely to affirm in international law, through a convention, the principle that there is no period of limitation for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to secure its universal application,

5. Recommends that no legislative or other action be taken which may be prejudicial to the aims and purposes of a convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity pending the adoption of a convention by the General Assembly. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2338 (XXII), 18 December 1967, preamble and § 5, voting record: 90-2-22-9.

In a resolution adopted in 1969 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly invited States concerned “which had not yet signed or ratified the [1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity] to do so as soon as possible”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2583 (XXIV), 15 December 1969, § 2, voting record: 74-5-32-15.

In a resolution adopted in 1970 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly welcomed “with satisfaction the fact that the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity entered into force on 11 November 1970” and requested States which had not yet become parties to this Convention “to do so as soon as possible”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2712 (XXV), 15 December 1970, preamble and § 6, voting record: 55-4-33-35.

In a resolution adopted in 1971 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly called upon all States which had not yet done so “to become as soon as possible parties to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2840 (XXVI), 18 December 1971, § 3, voting record: 71-0-42-19.

In 1973, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on principles of international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in which it recalled its resolution 2583 (XXIV) of 1969 and in which it stated:
States shall not take any legislative or other measures which may be prejudicial to the international obligations they have assumed in regard to the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3074 (XXVIII), 3 December 1973, preamble and § 8, voting record: 94-0-29-12.

UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 1966 on the question of punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN Economic and Social Council urged all States “to prevent the application of statutory limitation to war crimes and crimes against humanity”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 1158 (XLI), 5 August 1966, § 1.

UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1965 on the question of punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN Commission on Human Rights considered that:
The United Nations must contribute to the solution of the problems raised by war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are serious violations of the law of nations, and that it must, in particular, study possible ways and means of establishing the principle that there is no period of limitation for such crimes in international law. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 3 (XXI), 9 April 1965, preamble, voting record: Unanimously (as regards to the resolution as a whole), 19-0-2 (as regards subparagraph (b) of operative paragraph 1).

The Commission requested the UN Secretary-General “to undertake a study of the problems raised in international law by war crimes and crimes against humanity, and by priority a study of legal procedures to ensure that no period of limitation shall apply to such crimes”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 3 (XXI), 9 April 1965, § 2, adopted unanimously (as regards the resolution as a whole), 19-0-2 (as regards subparagraph (b) of operative paragraph 1).

In a resolution adopted in 2001 on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the UN Commission on Human Rights noted “the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity of 26 November 1968”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/66, 25 April 2001, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the UN Commission on Human Rights noted “the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity of 26 November 1968”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/66, 24 April 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the UN Commission on Human Rights took into consideration that “States parties to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity of 26 November 1968 have agreed that no statutory limitation shall apply to such crimes”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/62, 20 April 2005, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on impunity, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Acknowledges that under the Rome Statute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are not subject to any statutes of limitations and prosecutions of persons accused of these crimes shall not be subject to any immunity, and urges States, in accordance with their obligations under applicable international law, to remove remaining statutes of limitations on such crimes and to ensure, if provided for by their obligations under international law, that official immunities rationae materiae do not encompass them. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/81, 21 April 2005, § 4, adopted without a vote.

UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council:
Reaffirms that each High Contracting Party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) is under obligation to take action against persons alleged to have committed or to have ordered the commission of grave breaches of the Convention, and recalls the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, preamble, voting record: 27-11-8.

Back to top
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a recommendation adopted in 1979, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly expressed “its keen disappointment at the fact that none of Council of Europe member states has ratified the [1974 European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes], and that it has been signed only by France” and recommended that the Committee of Ministers:
i. invite member governments to sign and ratify the European Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitation to crimes against humanity and war crimes of 1974;
ii. invite member governments to take whatever steps may be necessary to ensure that neither the application of statutory limitation nor the implementation of any other legal measures should enable crimes against humanity and other very serious crimes to escape punishment. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 855 on statutory limitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, 2 February 1979, §§ 4 and 10(i) and (ii).

In a resolution adopted in 1984 on enforced disappearances, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly called upon the governments of the member States “to support the preparation and adoption by the United Nations of a declaration setting forth the following principles: … enforced disappearance is a crime against humanity which … is not subject to limitation”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 828 on enforced disappearances, 26 September 1984, § 13(a)(i)(2).

In a recommendation adopted in 1993 on establishing an international court to try serious violations of international humanitarian law, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly recommended that the Committee of Ministers “invite member states which have not yet done so to sign and ratify the 1974 European Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitation to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 1218 (1993) on establishing an international court to try serious violations of international humanitarian law, 27 September 1993, § 6(iii).

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (Rapporteur)
In 1979, in his presentation of a report on the statutory limitations of war crimes and crimes against humanity prepared by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the Rapporteur stated:
We studied the legislation in the member states [with regard to statutory limitation applying to war crimes and crimes against humanity] and have come to certain conclusions. There is no statutory limitation of war crimes, including World War II crimes, and crimes against humanity, in Austria, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In the Federal Republic of Germany the statutory limitation period for Second World War crimes will expire on 31 December 1979, but there will be no statutory limitation for future crimes.
In Luxembourg, the situation is reverse. There is statutory limitation in Belgium, Greece, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. But in Switzerland there is a proposal for the abolition of this limitation. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Legal Affairs Committee, Rapporteur, Report on the statutory limitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, 30th Ordinary Session, Twenty-fifth Sitting, 2 February 1979, Official Report of Debates, p. 959.

The Rapporteur further stated:
We ask that the statutory limitation be stopped. Sign and ratify the [1974 European Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes], take whatever steps may be necessary to ensure that neither the application of statutory limitation nor the implementation of any other legal measures should enable crimes against humanity and other very serious crimes to escape punishment. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Legal Affairs Committee, Rapporteur, Report on the statutory limitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, 30th Ordinary Session, Twenty-fifth Sitting, 2 February 1979, Official Report of Debates, p. 960.

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In 1993, a motion for a recommendation on the systematic gang rape of women and children on the territory of the former Yugoslavia presented by 37 members of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly contained the following part:
The [Parliamentary] Assembly … recommends that the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers and the governments of the member states: … re-affirm without delay that these violations of the integrity and dignity of women and children are unquestionably war crimes and even crimes against humanity and are not, therefore, subject to limitation. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Motion for a Recommendation on the systematic gang rape of women and children on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, Doc. 6770, Forty-fourth Ordinary Session, Fifth Part, Documents, Vol. VIII, 5 February 1993, § 3(i). (The motion was referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.)

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its judgment in the Tadić case in 1997, the ICTY referred to the judgments of the French courts in the Barbie case and stated:
641. In this case the Chambre d’accusation of the Court of Appeal of Lyons ordered that an indictment for crimes against humanity be issued against Klaus Barbie, head of the Gestapo of Lyons during the Second World War, but only for “persecutions against innocent Jews”, and held that prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations for crimes committed by Barbie against combatants who were members of the Resistance or whom Barbie thought were members of the Resistance, even if they were Jewish, because these acts could only constitute war crimes and not crimes against humanity …
642. While instructive, it should be noted that the court [of Cassation] in the Barbie case was applying national legislation that declared crimes against humanity not subject to statutory limitation, although the national legislation defined crimes against humanity by reference to the United Nations resolution of 13 February 1946, which referred back to the Nürnberg Charter (law of 26 December 1964); and the fact that a crime against humanity is an international crime was relied upon to deny the accused’s appeal on the bases of disguised extradition and an elapsed statute of limitations. 
ICTY, Tadić case, Judgment, 7 May 1997, §§ 641–642.

European Commission of Human Rights
In its admissibility decision in X v. FRG in 1976 concerning an application relative to the right to be tried for crimes committed during the Second World War within a reasonable time in criminal matters, the European Commission of Human Rights stated:
The Commission had regard to the fact that the rules of prescription do not apply to war crimes and that the international community requires the competent authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany to investigate and prosecute these crimes despite the difficulties encountered by reason of the long time that has elapsed since the commission of the acts concerned.
In this situation the Commission considers that the criteria determining reasonableness of the length of ordinary criminal proceedings are not applicable to proceedings concerning war crimes. 
European Commission of Human Rights, X v. FRG, Decision, 6 July 1976, § 1.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.