چکیده:
The regulations and criteria recognized by the international community as established principles from which deviation is not permitted are called the peremptory norms of international law, or jus cogens. Failure to comply with these rules and principles entails responsibility for all states, regardless of whether they are party to the treaties and declarations in which these rules are emphasized. Although not all provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and similar human rights treaties can and should be counted among these rules, some fundamental examples of human rights have attained such a status, including the prohibition of torture. Accordingly, all states, whether or not they are party to international instruments containing the prohibition of this act, are obligated not to commit this crime, and their officials cannot enjoy immunity regarding direct involvement, participation, or complicity in its commission. In this article, while referring to some international instruments and treaties, decisions of domestic courts, and international judicial practice, the fundamental human rights that have become peremptory norms in international law, particularly the issue of the prohibition of torture, are briefly addressed.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In this article, while referring to some international instruments, treaties, decisions of domestic courts, and international judicial practice, it briefly addresses certain instances of fundamental human rights that have become peremptory norms in international law, with a particular focus on the issue of the prohibition of torture.
6 Accordingly, all states are committed to the provisions of the Genocide Convention, which has also been referred to in the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the statute of the International Criminal Court, and also the draft law on crimes against peace and human security (prepared by the International Law Commission pursuant to United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. II-177 in 1947), and they cannot change the provisions of the Convention through an international treaty or domestic law, nor can they claim they are not bound by its provisions on the grounds of non-accession to the Convention.
The domestic courts of some countries have also, in their decisions, referred to some important instances of human rights which, in their view, have become peremptory norms of international law and consequently, their violation is certainly and unconditionally consequential, including the following cases: The decision of the House of Lords of England in the Pinochet case regarding the crime of torture,7 the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany regarding genocide8 and also regarding cruel, inhuman (1) Reservations to Conventions on Genocide.
Domestic courts of countries have also, in some cases, considered torture an international crime whose prohibition has transformed into a peremptory norm in international law, some of whose decisions were previously mentioned in this article.
(
, 
, 
)
