Hello, everyone. Good afternoon or good morning for those who like me are in their home countries.
I would first like to thank you for joining them, getting ready for the invitation.
I'm very glad to do my grunty view. And I'll teach ya by doing by presenting a seminar.
I will now start sharing my screen with you. Because I have some slides to share, point second.
So here we are. Well, I will initially start by giving you a bit of introduction on on the background of this research.
Political crimes and this scope and limitations to transitional transitions,
to democracy as part of a bigger project that I come to at the University of Maastricht there.
I see. I work on the topics of political crime. I analyse them through the lenses of extradition and of amnesties.
Also by conducting some empirical quantitative research on the cases of Brazil and South Africa.
Currently, I came to Oxford and joined the Latin American Centre to do the empirical analytical part concerning the Brazilian case.
What I will present to you today, though, is part of the first phase of my research,
where I do a more doctrinal research on the relationship between amnesties and political crimes, hence political crimes as well.
And amnesties is a work in progress. And as you might probably see, I still have some open questions in my mind that I plan to share with you today.
So before I jump into topic, I will give you a bit more of structure on what I plan to say.
The first the starting point of my presentation will be to address to explain the
motivations as to why I decided to analyse political crimes in the context of amnesties.
Why is this relevant, relevant question critically? Secondly, I will present a definition of amnesty that I use.
I will describe the procedural aspects of amnesties and bring an attempt to present different and fresh analysis rationales involved in
it and relating these rationalities rationalities to the interests of the subject that are involved in the amnesty decision process.
Finally, I get to watch crime scan figure as the material scope of amnesty,
and then I analyse the relationship between Amnesty's and political crimes.
By doing so, I aim to demonstrate the gaps in the amnesty literature concerning political crimes,
despite their relevance as object of amnesty as well.
I'm trying to pinpoint aspects of amnesties that might affect the concept of political crimes.
Finally, I arrived to one amnesty laws label as political crimes,
and I attempt to design the elements of crime that are present and political crimes being political crime, a crime as then as the label would say.
The final objective is to analyse them as a normative rather than a political than a political category.
And with this, I would I would like to highlight that when I talk when I go to this parallel between normative and political concept,
it's because amnesties tend to be mostly guided by political concerns rather than legal aspects,
which does not mean that the normative standards are not applicable and should not be applicable.
One of them raised, one of them raised by me is as a model where rule of law is the final goal of Amnesty's.
And with this, I aim to limit the discretion. That's things usually have in granting amnesties.
Hands. According to two, two, two, two, the thoughts that I will present to you today.
The normative backdrop is not only beneficial because it gives a bit more of security and structures to the amnesty procedure,
but also is necessary to delay, imitate, to imitate states.
Why then do I investigate political crimes in the context of Amnesty's?
The first reason is because both of them are linked to positions, which is our connecting topic today.
I would say that both of them are present in transitions from war to peace, from authoritarianism to democracy or any other sort of conflict.
And Amnesty's on on the. On the one side. Ah.
Ah. Ah. Mechanism that was presence for a long time and as a as a peace instrument.
And by this I could do a big historical conversion and go to Greece, which I will look to currently in the transitional justice framework.
Amnesty's account for over one half of the transitional justice mechanisms, which highlights that the relevance of the instrument.
However, at the same time,
they receive a lot of criticism and they are frequently challenged as it happened in many cases in Latin America, apart from in Brazil.
When I say that I will talk about amnesties, I would like to highlight also that we have different types of amnesties.
We have conditional amnesties and unconditioned amnesties.
We have amnesties that are a result of fairly open public discussion of the decision on granting them.
And we have amnesties that are simply posed by dictators.
So these nuances need to be analysed.
When we talk both about amnesties and when we talk about political crimes and why here don't talk about political crimes.
Most Amnesty Scholder political crimes,
they account for approximately 85 percent of all the amnesties granted during a period during the period from 1990 to 2000 and sixteen.
That's my question is what are political crimes in the context of Amnesty's?
This will be a pending question for a while, but I don't plan to answer in the beginning of representation.
Most part of the literature tackles the political crimes that can receive amnesties under the label of international crime.
And this is this is a mess. This is part of a massive literature that I've had that I have come across.
But I deem this to be a bit problematic for two reasons.
First, because international crimes, they are only account accountable for 22 percent of all the amnesties granted.
So even though they are a very problematic part of it, they are not the biggest part of it.
Second, because Amnesty's seems to me to be rather a problem of domestic criminal law all or at least the amnesties that I focus on my research.
And an example of this is the clash that South Africa had with the apartheid convention of 1973,
where they did not sign nor ratified and did not do so until notice in order to protect at the time the ridging that was in power.
And now that days possibly to protect their amnesty.
The concept of political crime and a possible overlap with international crimes become a source of bigger concern.
Well, that's a shows that. Free democracies are decreasing on their quality,
and free democracies are traditionally the ones that do not consider international amnesty for international crimes.
This overlap between international crimes and amnesties is hence a problem because it might put in danger the compliance with human rights.
And with this, I tried to argue that Amnesty's an intern and political crimes lack a normative background,
which as a consequence, leave leave states to the to discretion to apply them according to their wishes.
Second, I argue that political crimes can offer or at least offer some normative background to amnesties since we are talking about a crime and crime.
Traditionally demands a definition to be aligned to the legality principle.
And as a consequence, I propose some elements that derived from the amnesty analysis to figure as elements of the crime of the political crime.
With this, I jumped into Yemen, into the Amnesty's overview.
I know I promised to not do any historical diversion, but here I need to jump in to Greece, 404 for Christ, the the very big root of that.
And this two words is a net amnesia, which is a Greek word for oblivion, forgetfulness.
And even if historically amnesties were related to oblivion and recently they might have changed,
the biggest part of amnesties are still not related to memory and truth recovery.
Less than 20 out of two hundred and eighty nine amnesties from 1990 to 2016 are conditioned to truth.
They have been thus used to keep mostly used to keep peace between conflicting conflicting states and political enemies.
My working definition of Amnesty's is. A state official policy or law that grants forgiveness in criminal jurisdiction to prospect and
previous consequences of criminal behaviour in response to pullets to exceptional circumstances.
And by this we have five features from amnesties that emerge.
And I will briefly explain them to you. The first is that Amnesty's work ends and remain an expression of sovereign power.
And the relevance of this is because when it started back there a bit after Greece with a Gittings granting pardons to their citizens.
They were related to an expression of such sovereign mercy.
And nowadays, events suppressed in the most various ways.
We will approach it when we talk about the procedures and amnesty. The second is the recognition in civil or criminal consequences of the crime.
First, when addressing the criminal consequences of the crime,
they are both related to prospect consequences in the sense that a crime is committed today.
An investigation is still not in place, but Amnesty's already gives some protection to this perpetrator.
I'm also due to brief U.S. Consequences in the sense that the crime is committed.
The individual was sentenced and then amnesty comes for both cases.
Amnesty would cover the criminal consequence.
The second aspect, and for me may be a bit more problematic, is that Amnesty's, according to countries, can or can cover or not.
The civil consequences of the crime and in the cases where they would cover also the civil consequences of the crime.
This would implicate keeping victims.
Absolutely. The UN assistance, which is a very serious problem.
When we talk about gross human rights violations and international crimes,
from the criminal law perspective, I would also like to highlight that Amnesty's are not.
Do not bring a statement concerning the liability of the crime, but rather of the responsibility of the individual for its consequences.
And the message before behind's it is that what we talk about, someone who committed a political crime.
The amnesty message is, well, the crime might have been committed.
This person might have been might have perpetrated the crime and steal.
We will choose to not prosecuted and obviously,
depending on which crime was the political crime in case this have this might
have suffered serious consequences to the moral and moral message behind it.
The group targeted by Amnesty's is necessarily as tight as I put it, a title.
A group, not an individual. Amnesty's weren't are not namely destined to two individuals, as is the case, for instance, with the pardons.
And we have very recent examples of the pardons given by the former American president.
When we talk about a timeframe of this D, they have they have a predefined starts, an ending point.
They cover it crimes from day any to date set.
They are not unlimited time and also it covers both past and future conducts and we talk about future conduct.
It's because Amnesty's especially if they aim to to to involve individuals that are currently in conflict,
are currently part of the conflict, rebels and et cetera.
They can they can serve as to stimulate them to lay down their arms.
And last but not least, the exception to the context and by exceptional context, I mean that Amnesty's,
as we established, are usually a result of wars of dictatorship and some other sort of conflict.
And by saying this, we assume at least that this is not the norm, rather the exception.
So they are usually applied in exceptional contexts. And I suspect.
And here I, I give a bit of a hint of my views on political crime.
That's the contextual circumstances of the moment when amnesty was granted will operate a relevant standard in the analysis
of political crimes and defining the different levels of violence that can or will be tolerated by a certain amnesty.
Even if I have briefly mentioned pardons and other forms of state leniency towards criminal behaviour or are not in the scope of this research,
such as immunities, statute limitations and others.
As I said before, amnesties are very, very right.
We can have many different amnesties with many different features.
And usually what makes the difference between them are how they are granted.
And that's why I decided to talk about the procedural aspects of Amnesty's.
I defined it the procedural aspects into two phases of amnesty and the stakeholders which I would present soon when talking about the freight,
the phases of amnesty. So I am by analysing literature.
I realise that most of the times amnesties are mentioned quite honest is that the UN systematically,
in the sense that sometimes we talk about granting, sometimes we talk about applying.
So I tried to organise this into three phases. First is the granting phase, and I would say that this is what's the most important and common one.
The granting phase and I like this, the decision of granting amnesty and reach legal instruments are used for it.
There are three different legal instruments, long peace agreements and executive discretion.
And the difference between them is that it will. There are some nuances according to the level of public participation that they are involved.
And even in the executive discretion, we can have executive decrees that are later discussed with the public and a referendum or something like this.
And also, we can have laws that are amnesty laws that are passed by a non democratically elected legislature.
So these are relevant nuances when we talk about the instruments of amnesty.
The second relevant part of it.
Granting face for me is the conditionality of amnesty. Amnesties can be rented with conditions or not.
And the condition would be the obligation to apply to to apply to amnesty in order to provide the perpetrator the chance to obtain or retain amnesty.
They play a relevant role and amnesties since, according to literature,
the legitimacy and capacity to contribute to peace of an amnesty and can provide
dependent on the existence and the quantity of the conditions attached to the process.
There are mainly two types of Amnesty's sorry, there are mainly two types of conditions,
the ones that focus on combat combatants and the ones that focus on victims.
There are also unconditional amnesties. They consist of 35 percent of the total of Amnesty's annualised of the total.
One hundred and eighty nine amnesties analysed. Between 2000 and nineteen ninety sorry, between 1990 and 2016.
And here I got some data to show, which are usually the conditions that are present in the end, the conditional on the states.
And as you can see, telling the truth and repairing the victims are not the biggest part of them.
And this I would like to highlight, because we will we will analyse this as an element later on.
Again. With this, I move on to the application phase, the application phase,
depending on which decisions are worth taking during the granting phase, might require the bench the beneficiary to apply for amnesty.
If the amnesty is conditional, that the beneficiary needs to apply to receive the amnesty.
This means that there is a concrete case analysis before the amnesty is applied to the individual case.
Hence, another state's authority would analyse the application, which is also helpful to give a bit more of power balance in the amnesty process.
And there are also applications eventually, in the end, the end, the unconditional amnesties.
They could they could come as a defence in a criminal proceeding or they could come as a sort of obvious push or an escape.
I see. I explain here when amnesty can appear as a defence.
For instance, someone that committed a crime and is being prosecuted in court.
This person can claim that, in fact, there is no reasoning for this prosecution since this person is Kofod by a previous amnesty.
And this would happen on a case by case differently.
I would I labelled that amnesties can be used as a form of this.
If I say in the case that despite not existing and not existing any conditions to the amnesty application,
there is a formal process where you have to apply and appear before a certain authority.
In this case, there would be some analysis also of the suitability and legality of the end of the amnesty application, regardless of any conditions.
And in all of these three cases, political crimes could be requisite to be evaluated in the amnesty application process.
And in the in the application phase, I would like to highlight that in all of these cases,
there will be an individual case analysis by regarding any procedure of application.
Those amnesties lower by this regarding story whenever it's not the case of needing an
application face for an amnesty to two for an individual to benefit for the amnesty,
it would mean that there. That these amnesties lowered to zero the burden of proof and truth, disclosure and victim reparation.
But this I would like to do a very brief reflection on with my criminal lawyer side speaking out loud,
because when we talk about a person that commits a crime and alleges and and claims that the crime was committed in self-defence,
this person still needs to go to court and prove that this was the case of self-defence.
And when we talk about amnesties that's are granted without any condition and without any application procedure,
we're talking about amnesties where the person doesn't need to basically say anything to benefit from this order.
With this after this brief reflection, I would like to jump into the recognition recognition phase in the recognition phase, the amnesty.
But Midcity is analysed in the sense that it's analysed broadly as the amnesty of the amnesty provision is analysed broadly,
not on a case by case basis. This could happen in conditional amnesties as it was the case of the case in South Africa.
And it can also happen in unconditional amnesties as it happened in Brazil.
In this case, it's still possible that legal measures are taken.
Eggar, Erica, on this challenging the validity of Amnesty's rather than on individual basis.
With this move towards the stakeholder analysis, the stakeholders are the persons or entities with an interest or concern in the amnesty process.
I divided them into three categories. The beneficiary, the granting authority, and I think the most problematic one.
But I want to take the chance to raise this concern that, ah,
that what I labelled as bystanders, the beneficiaries of amnesties, are the perpetrators.
They are the ones that benefit either immediately either after the application or the condition implementation.
The granting authorities I labelled as the state.
As I said previously, this the amnesties aren't traditionally given by those who hold power to do so.
And since they they they they approach the the forgiveness of crimes,
those who have the legitimacy to forgive these crimes are the ones who work would be responsible,
Frauke, for them, for the criminal prosecution, which would mean the state.
And in this category, I would like to highlight the presence of the self amnesties and the reason why I highlight their presence
is because whenever the state uses an amnesty provision to forgive the crimes committed by their own agents,
the logic behind the amnesty granted diverges because whenever the state forgives a non-state actor for a crime committed by,
it is using the fact that the crime was committed, even if not directly, indirectly, against the state.
Who has the law? However, concerning state actors, the state leniency with them does not make sense actors.
As as it would be the case of actors in political crimes. And here I would raise the question.
Can the state be both the victim and the perpetrator of a political crime?
And finally, I get to the bystander's category by goodbye's by analysing them.
I would like to to to to give a bit of insight on how I labelled.
They would be the subject who see what is happening without being actively involved in the amnesty process.
And here I highlight they are bystanders and in the amnesty process rather than in the crime,
because obviously victims are not bystanders in the crime. And why do I say this?
Because both victims and the international community are remaining quiet.
This tent from the amnesty granting and sometimes whenever conditions are not present,
also from the application of of Amnesty's, which I find to be very problematic.
By victims, I am talking about those who are directly or indirectly impacted by the book, by the amnesty.
And by international community,
I talk about the states other than the other than those who weren't which were directly involved in the conflict or war.
And as an example, we'll talk about that, the American presence and the conduct operations in Latin America in the 80s.
With this, I would like to start discussing the rationale behind amnesty and the rationale behind prosecution.
The rationale is would be the reason behind the amnesty existence.
It is necessary to comprehend them because they are justifications behind prosecution and punishment in both domestic and
international criminal law and relate to and relate them to transitional justice to premises are necessary to be established here.
The first one is that there is not necessarily a direct opposition between amnesty and prosecution.
Russian atlas. I do believe at the end that in certain cases, depending on how the procedure of amnesties is developed,
it is possible that amnesties can cover at least some of the of the the Russian others involved in prosecution.
And the second premise is that both of these aims are achievable, which would be an analysis,
whether they are achievable or not, would be a complete different. Research.
Finally, I I treated in a twofold manner.
First is that Amnesty's can both lead to achieving the rationale of prosecution or.
And the rationale is behind amnesties are more important than the ones in persecution.
With this, I talk about which are the Russian in criminal and international criminal law.
The Russian army is being behind prosecution are usually retribution, deterrence, restoration and expressive ism.
I wouldn't want to explain each of them, but I would like to point out to to ask the question whether can amnesty achieve those objectives?
When we talk about the retribution aspect, the moral analysis of concerning the commitment of a crime.
It seems to be the case that eventually amnesty can and can represent can give at least a bit of this moral aspect.
But it really depends on the procedure. And on the the team.
Concerning the terrorists, I would be a bit more hesitant because amnesties have been repeatedly granted.
We have some examples of, for instance, Sri Lanka, where we had 30 to Amnesty's best estimate.
Which means that they do. They still remain necessary because the crimes related to conflict keep on being committed.
With this, I would like to address restoration and expressive ism, which as well can be achieved by amnesty,
depending on the procedure which is used, depending on how much victims are involved in the amnesty process.
Then I'll jump to transition. Whatever the rationale is behind transition, the first one, I would say that is the most immediate one, that is Speace.
And when we talk about peace, I would just like to do a small observation in the sense that,
um, the seas are far away from being the requisite to achieving peace.
Data shows that they are granted in high rates, not only renegotiation, but in fact, during all the other faces,
conflict, negotiation, renegotiation, mean negotiation, comprehensive agreements and and host agreement.
And finally, when we talk about truth. As I mentioned before, in the previous slide where I showed the conditions to this D,
it is also possible to see that truth is not a frequent condition. And in the amnesty, even in the later.
In the late. Years. The relevance of this question is then what stands out?
And here I propose some to wait to balance these these rationales.
The need for retribution, deterrence and restoration, or expressive ism is either outweighed by the need for peace,
truth and reconciliation, or they are as important as the need for peace, truth and reconciliation.
The balance should bend to the side of justice.
Whenever there is a close relationship with the rule of law, punishment and prosecution are deemed as signs of institutionalised accountability.
Which means that in longer terms, societies might pay a price for skipping this phase.
Put it like this. The balance tends to the side should bend to the side of peace.
Whenever a society can be so fragile lies that granting amnesty is the only way to achieve peace in the short term.
In the case.
Retribution, deterrence and expressive ism and restoration of hope in case they are not achievable at peace might be the only way to do so.
Which means the best outcome would come through amnesties. And in this case, we cannot deny it.
We have different and different interests that are present in amnesty by this part of my presentation.
I would address which which stakeholders are really two different interests, too.
At the end. I would like to really these interests to political crimes in the sense that when the states decides to criminalise a search and conduct,
it aims to with this law protecting certain interests.
And my question would be, which is the interest protected by political crimes from the state's perspective?
The interest would be go for an ability and political stability with two important variables as limitations.
The existence in this state of strong institutions and the rule of law in the sense that the states cannot put in this scope in the book of honesty,
whichever content they would want, the individual perspective would be we have as an interest the freedom of political prisoners,
the individual's rights of political expression,
and also their intricate reintegration of former combatants in the sense that whenever someone is sentenced for the crime,
they lose most part of the times their political rights,
which would mean if if a state sentence people to to go to a certain political crimes at the end.
This would mean that they are they remain outside of the political life of the country.
And finally, society victims and international community's perspective are reunited by peace amongst other interests
by which could which I could explain by truth I acknowledgement of the violations and reparations.
But how do they relate to political crimes? Which of these interests are at stake in the norm protection of of criminalising a political crime?
I suspect that is the state's perspective that is at stake.
However, whenever the criminalisation of a political crime would harm more than protect it.
And this dish should be granted. And with this, I jumped into the heart of this presentation, which crimes can figure in the scope of honesty?
Usually some criteria aren't the limit.
Teach it to choose which crimes should or should not be in the scope of amnesty.
These these crimes these criteria arise from limiting dates.
Crimes that are committed from a certain date to another date.
Also by listing crimes Richman's and then amnesty law.
That would be on a list of which crimes could be forgiven.
And finally, and most commonly, the third is to introduce amnesty to political and related crimes.
These three criteria. They can be applied cumulatively or alternatively.
And here I question. Do they have do these crimes that receive amnesty have any specific quality?
Which crimes can be granted amnesty? Since the majority of them are political crimes, as I previously said.
What are the political crimes so far?
I spoke about political crimes and I purposely did not explain it.
The first pillar is that I have to step here is that I talk about political crimes
because this is the term that is used in most part of the amnesty provisions.
But in fact, what I want to do is to question this thing.
Literature has traditionally defined it, it's in six categories economic crimes, crimes against individual sexual violence, evasion and desertion.
And international international crimes and political crimes.
However, this categorisation leads to the assumption that there could be no overlap when in fact it's all about due overlap.
Can sexual crimes be considered a political crime? Can international crimes because sudheer a political crime?
Here I recall the concept of amnesty that I put before, and let's take a hypothesis where the capital, the American capital, is invaded.
Let's suppose that few years later, the American president, when leaving his or her mandates,
decides to pass an amnesty act that forgives those who are sentenced to public patrimony discussion,
bodily injury and homicide and homicides committed during this invasion.
The invasion is clearly far from being ordinary. It was an exceptional context.
If those crimes were committed not in the context of these exceptional event, but outside the invasion, there would be no forgiveness for them.
Starting from the promise,
from the premise that amnesties are granted to to crimes that are committed to what we label labelled before in an exceptional context,
at strictly, every crime could be considered for amnesty.
So long as they are committed under this umbrella. Hence the hype.
But hypothetically, every crime could be granted amnesty. But is that so?
Here I start talking about what I suspect cannot be part of this deal, neither as a consequence be considered political crimes.
I addressed international crimes and gross human rights violations.
All of them are hardly ever explicitly listed in the amnesties, even though in reality they are sometimes covered by them.
How can they not be listed and still be eventually,
Colford states apply diplomatic and diplomatic writing when defining political crimes in the sense that they define without defining a lot.
Usually these crimes are hidden behind the writing of the amnesty provisions.
And what hides them sometimes one of the categories that hides international crimes is the category of political crimes.
The difficult issue with the relationship between international crimes,
amnesties and political crimes is that Amnesty's cover serious, that Kovar serious human rights violations do not promote peace.
And this is a result of empirical research then done by Bentzi, even if passed after a conflict that has ended.
Hence, I ask the question, are international crimes and gross human rights violations subject to amnesty?
Can they be considered political crimes?
The first consideration is that there is no legal instrument or hard or soft law that expressly a testing possibility of granting amnesty to crimes,
not even international crimes. However, there are documents that point out to the need of investigation and or prosecution,
according to the legal illegal order, which is named as the duty to prosecute.
It is ironic, though, that the only international document that refers specifically to amnesty does so by encouraging its.
This controversy is bigger than the present. And this presentation.
So I will only use it to delimit take the concept that is relevant to me, which is political friends in amnesty.
The link between the obligation to prosecute an amnesty is that whenever the duty to prosecute applies.
Amnesty cannot exist since they since they bar the investigation, prosecution or punishment.
There are three three levels of of analysis of the data to prosecute, which I will skip due to the time.
But what I would like to highlight is that there are different levels of commitment to prosecution amongst these things,
instrument conventions that creates the obligation to to prosecute human rights treaties that adopt
that approach it through to the through the right of remedy and customary international law.
And my final question would be these limitations affect political crimes, should they affect political crimes?
And my my my premise is that aligning amnesty to political crime,
the political element that gives amnesty the possibility of giving a more lenient treatment to a crime.
Does not seem to be the same element that could lead for a more serious treatment, for instance, towards an international criminal court.
It would be rather contradiction, contradictory.
For instance, if a public officer performs conduct that lead to systematic attack of a civilian or military tortures a prisoner,
can the same political elements be enough to grant forgiveness?
Water, then the political crimes. If this limit tape.
If this limitation says that it was cannot be political crimes.
The most relevant question would be how does this exceptional political elements translate and connect to it, to political crimes here?
I would like to stop calling them political crimes. And and I am approaching the end of my presentation.
From the start, I would start calling them crimes with a political element.
They are conduct's united by the existence of a political elements that links the crime with amnesty for this.
I have some hypothesis. I have found some hypothesis and literature.
B, it's the motivation behind the conduct, the targets aimed or the context in which it's the crime is imputed.
What this literature say. It says that political crimes are very our very various.
They can start from defamation to extreme violence, which shows that there is a big range of discretion in defining them.
Still, there are some common places that I would like to point out here behind this different labels that I found in literature,
for instance, political and politically motivated crimes are political and related common crimes.
What unites them is a conduct is some is that there are some condos that are fully committed to this political element,
which means that if not in this and in this state, and that is to say, they would not be a crime.
And there are conduct's that are only partially related to the political element,
which means that if you remove the political element, they would still be considered crimes by that.
As an example of the first ones, I could I could mention treason, rebellion, espionage, Foster Baganda between other elements.
And as an example of the second category, I could, for instance, mention any theft in the cause of a political fight.
The big questions are what determines the crimes that aren't fully affected by the political element as political
crimes concerning those who were those crimes that are partially affected only by this political element,
which graduations are allowed for it to be granted amnesty.
In the course of crimes. Literature have been approaching it through the lens consist of of extradition.
However, I take here a step back to consider whether this would be the solution or even if this would be the solution.
Why would we? The two different.
Two different legal categories in the same level. Just because they have the same legal political crimes.
I take this that back to it to disconnect from extradition,
labelling them as crimes with full political elements or crimes with a partial political one.
And what is that I propose here? I propose translating the amnesty elements into elements of political crimes.
And I name here for the four elements that I propose. The first is the legal interest.
How did the interest involved in amnesty translate into the legal interests of political crimes?
As I mentioned before, it seems to me that the interest protected by political crimes are the interests of the state.
Also, when we analyse the parties to the crime,
as in who can figure as the perpetrator and the victim of the crime, it would be the state as the victim.
Because this is basically the rationale behind Rush Alley,
behind the existence of a political crime and also the perpetrator as far as any other person who is opposing the state,
which means this relation of opposition is an element of the political crimes.
Which is also aligned with the with the observation that it did concerning itself.
And this takes the material elements would be the limitations to the conduct when assessing different levels of violence and the contextual threshold,
which I approach, as in the amnesty concept, as the exceptional aspect of justice.
And finally, the mental element does motivation.
In fact, the mental element, is the motivation enough, the political motivation enough to by itself cover Kovar, deem a crime as a political crime.
And by this enable it to reach to receive amnesty.
And this would be, for instance, a rhetorical question and an example concerning terrorism, which might have a political element.
And with this, I finished my presentation. I would like to thank you so much for your attention.
And I'm open to the questions.