El principio de la responsabilidad del superior jerárquico
Loading...
Date
2019
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Revista del Centro de Estudios Superiores Navales
Abstract
De jure o de facto, la Corte Penal Internacional con la sentencia de Bemba Gombo en 2016 equiparó las obligaciones de los comandantes militares de ejércitos regulares a aquellos comandantes de fuerzas armadas de facto. Los criterios de responsabilidad, a saber, el nivel de conocimiento del comandante de lo que sus hombres hacen, están por hacer, hicieron o dejaron de hacer; las medidas razonables que tomó o está por tomar a fin de prevenir y/o reprimir la comisión de crímenes por parte de sus subordinados; el control efectivo que ejerce o ejerció o puede ejercer en términos reales de sus hombres a fin de evitar la
comisión del injusto; así como si notificó o no a las autoridades competentes de lo que sucedió o está por suceder, se constituyen en los estándares a partir de los cuales se miden las obligaciones de los Superiores Jerárquicos.
El Superior Jerárquico no tiene responsabilidad de los crímenes que sus hombres materialmente comenten, sino porque incumplió en sus responsabilidades de mando. La actuación del comandante no se asume a priori, se debe analizar como lo ha reiterado la Corte Penal Internacional in concreto. Lo contrario sería excesivo. Las formas aiding and abetting en la omisión en el artículo 25 del Estatuto completan la presunta responsabilidad del Superior.
De jure or de facto, the International Criminal Court with the Bemba Gombo ruling in 2016 equated the obligations of military commanders of regular armies to those commanders of de facto armed forces. The criteria of responsibility, namely, the level of knowledge of the commander of what his men do, are to be done, done or failed to do; the reasonable measures that it took or is about to take in order to prevent and / or repress the commission of crimes by its subordinates; the effective control exercised or exercised or can exercise in real terms of his men in order to avoid the commission of the unjust; as well as whether or not it notified the competent authorities of what happened or is about to happen, they constitute the standards from which the obligations of the Hierarchical Superiors are measured. The Hierarchical Superior is not responsible for the crimes that his men materially comment, but because he failed to fulfil his responsibilities of command. The action of the commander is not assumed a priori, must be analysed as reiterated by the ICC in concreto. The opposite would be excessive. The aiding and abetting forms in the omission in article 25 of the Statutecomplete the presumed responsibility of the Superior.
De jure or de facto, the International Criminal Court with the Bemba Gombo ruling in 2016 equated the obligations of military commanders of regular armies to those commanders of de facto armed forces. The criteria of responsibility, namely, the level of knowledge of the commander of what his men do, are to be done, done or failed to do; the reasonable measures that it took or is about to take in order to prevent and / or repress the commission of crimes by its subordinates; the effective control exercised or exercised or can exercise in real terms of his men in order to avoid the commission of the unjust; as well as whether or not it notified the competent authorities of what happened or is about to happen, they constitute the standards from which the obligations of the Hierarchical Superiors are measured. The Hierarchical Superior is not responsible for the crimes that his men materially comment, but because he failed to fulfil his responsibilities of command. The action of the commander is not assumed a priori, must be analysed as reiterated by the ICC in concreto. The opposite would be excessive. The aiding and abetting forms in the omission in article 25 of the Statutecomplete the presumed responsibility of the Superior.
Description
Keywords
responsabilidad del superior jerárquico, comandantes militares, conocimiento, prevención, control efectivo, notificación, comandantes de jure, comandantes de facto, icty, ictr, tpiy, tpir, corte penal internacional, yamashita, bemba gombo, omisión, estatu, superior’s criminal liability, military commanders, knowledge, prevention, effective control, notification, de jure commanders, de facto commanders, icty, ictr, tpiy, tpir, international criminal court, yamashita, bemba gombo, omission, rome statute, juri