by Giandonato Caggiano and Elisabetta Zamparutti

The campaign for the abolition of the death penalty must pursue among other objectives the removal of some crimes and several categories of alleged criminals from the jurisdictional sovereignty of individual states. This is one way of reducing and gradually eliminating the existence and the application of the death penalty.

Until today the control of the United Nations over the application of liberties and human rights on a national level has taken place through the presentation of cumulative reports on the situation of each country, or alternatively through individual appeals to bodies set up by various treaties, such as the Human Rights Committee instituted by the 1966 United Nations Pact on civil and political rights.

Nonetheless, the exercise of the fundamental human right to "fair" justice and to a fair trial cannot be thoroughly fulfilled in a number of situations in which there is an evident lack of objectivity on the part of courts, for example with sentences for those accused of instigating a coup d'état; the same is true of crimes connected with wide-ranging transnational behaviour (such as trafficking in drugs or arms). It is evident that there are huge differences in the treatment of the responsibility and culpability of children and, in general, of minors.

On this matter the international community should develop international rules which automatically limit the power of states to exercise justice.

Such a development must be promoted within the campaign for the abolition of the death penalty, through the insertion of specific limitations in protocols to UN conventions on human rights, and also through the constitution of true international courts of justice.

It is important that international law reduces the sovereignty of states in the exercise of justice and in the potential application of the death penalty for the most serious crimes, through substantial or procedural restrictions under the auspices of the United Nations and international courts of law. u2e.

The recent matter of the resolution of the Security Council regarding the responsibility of two Libyan agents who allegedly took part in the Pan Am (Lockerbie) bombing is a clear example that international co-operation on criminal proceedings is at a turning point.

With its resolution dated 21/1/92 the Security Council requested the Libyan government to co-operate "with the establishment of responsibility for acts of terrorism" and "to take steps towards a response to the request for contributing to the elimination of international terrorism".

Although this resolution does not yet clarify the form which international judicial co-operation will take, it is evident that for some crimes the Security Council has declared its competence and its authority with respect to the administration of justice.

This appears to be a further step forward for the strengthening of the process of intervention in the domestic affairs of member states of the United Nations. It is also the way ahead for further assertion of international penal jurisdiction for some crimes and for some alleged criminals: as we have said before, the way ahead should be through additional protocols to United Nations conventions on human rights.