ZAGREB, Sept 24 (Hina) - A constitutional law professor at the Zagreb Law School, Sinisa Rodin, on Tuesday gave Hina his legal opinion of the possibilities of constitutional-legal protection in proceedings stipulated by Article 3 of
Croatia's constitutional law on cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
ZAGREB, Sept 24 (Hina) - A constitutional law professor at the
Zagreb Law School, Sinisa Rodin, on Tuesday gave Hina his legal
opinion of the possibilities of constitutional-legal protection in
proceedings stipulated by Article 3 of Croatia's constitutional
law on cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY). #L#
In a written response to Hina, Rodin says that UN Security Council
Resolution 827, passed in 1993 on the basis of Chapter VII of the
Charter of the United Nations, constitutes the legal basis of
Croatia's international legal obligation to cooperate with The
Hague-based tribunal.
Resolution 827 states that "all States shall cooperate fully with
the International Tribunal and its organs in accordance with the
present resolution and the Statute of the International Tribunal
and that consequently all States shall take any measures necessary
under their domestic law to implement the provisions of the present
resolution and the Statute, including the obligation of States to
comply with requests for assistance or orders issued by a Trial
Chamber under Article 29 of the Statute."
The rule that states cannot refer to national law, even
constitutional provisions, to avoid meeting international legal
commitments, is an old and generally accepted rule of international
law which is stipulated also by Article 27 of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, Professor Rodin writes.
The implementation of the obligation to cooperate with the ICTY is
regulated by Croatia's constitutional law on cooperation with the
ICTY.
Under Article 3, the request for cooperation or the execution of
certain ICTY decisions is delivered to the Croatian government.
Croatia will act on the request if the request and the decision
comply with the ICTY Statute and Rule Book on Procedure and Evidence
and if they do not clash with the Croatian Constitution.
If the request meets the requirements in Article Two, the
government forwards it to the competent state body for execution.
Article 13 stipulates that the ICTY request for the arrest of a
person accused by the UN tribunal is ruled on by the investigating
judge of the competent county court.
In line with the Constitution and the constitutional law on the
Constitutional Court, a constitutional complaint may be lodged
against certain acts passed by bodies of state authority in
proceedings stipulated by Article 3 of the constitutional law on
cooperation with the ICTY, as well as against a ruling of the
competent county court.
The Article 3 provision allowing cooperation with the ICTY only if
it is not contrary to the Croatian Constitution should be
interpreted in this light. Therefore, it is possible to control the
constitutionality and legality of the conduct of state bodies, the
government included, in connection with proceedings stipulated by
Article 3.
The Constitutional Court may assess how much constitutional laws
are formally harmonised with the Constitution. In other words,
Professor Rodin states, the competent county court may request the
Constitutional Court to launch proceedings which should assess if
the constitutional law on cooperation with the ICTY is in harmony
with the Croatian Constitution.
However, the legal effects of Constitutional Court decisions do not
affect the scope and/or content of Croatia's international legal
commitments, Rodin writes.
Prime Minister Ivica Racan yesterday referred to Article 3 of the
constitutional law on cooperation with the ICTY when he said that
said article binds the government to determine if an ICTY
indictment against General Janko Bobetko is in compliance with the
Constitution.
(hina) ha sb