Tommy Thomas kunun dapat angle kaw berhubung debat isu Rom statute untuk beri asas untuk kekalkannya.
Dengan mendedahkan BN ada rancang nak ratifikasikan Rom Statute, Tommy Thomas ingat ianya asas untuk kekalkan.
Saksinya Dato Nur Faridah, anak dara tua yang memperjuangkan bersekedudukan, zina dan khalwat. Itu yang dia ikut selama jadi Dura ke Belanda.
Setakat hal PBB, takkan tak dikaji. Yang mahukan pun Nur Faridah.
Memang kaji pada 2011 tapi tak dilaksanakan pun. Menurut Peguam Negara ketika itu, ia mungkin bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Menteri Luar Negara, Dato Anifah Aman pun tak usahakan untuk diratifikasikan.
 |
| Si bodoh tapi sombong dan degil lagi memandai |
Yang Saifuddin Abdullah main ratifikasi tanpa merujuk kepada kabinet dan PM, kena diketahui si bodoh tapi sombong dan degil ini memandai.
Tunggu dia akan memandai untuk enggan tarikbalik Rom Statute.
Macam mana putuskan pun, bila tak laksana tak ada isu langsung pernah putuskan.
 |
| Terdedah berbohong pada Majlis Raja-Raja |
Sudah terkantoi Tommy Thomas sudah bohong pada Majlis Raja-Raja kata tidak ada apa-apa.
Empat pensyarah dedahkan dia tipu, lalu sekarang puak sesat jalan ini semua nak serang pulak pensyarah yang lebih pandai dari loyar tomato busuk.
Lalu mereka dihina dan diugut. Mana kebebasan akademik yang PH konon perjuangkan?
Satu lagi janji manifesto yang dimungkiri.
Tommy Thomas dan Prof Shad Faruqi gagal meyakinkan Majlis Raja-Raja lalu buat forum untuk maki memaki dan hina Raja.
Nampaknya, tidaklah terer mana Tommy Thomas sebagai pakar Perlembagaan dan pendakwa kes SRC.
Penipu saja...
Wow! 25 persen...
6 ulasan:
Kalau sultan2, raja2 atau mana2 orang awam yang ingin bertanya berkenaan perlembagaan Tanah Melayu, bertanyalah kepada 4 orang ahli akademik diatas, mereka yang telah present kertas kerja kepada YDPA. Mereka sangat pakar dan arif berkenaannya, sangat dihormati. Janganlah bertanya kepada mana2 professor UM ke, apa ke yang boleh diumpama sebagai professor kangkung@kuchai...
Anak dara tua rupanya... eiii seram!
CHILE
Decision of the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) of 7 April 2002 [Decisión del Tribunal Constitucional respecto de la constitucionalidad del Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional, 7 de abril de 2002
INTRODUCTION
- The Constitutional Court handed down its decision following a request submitted by 35 members of Parliament representing more that one fourth of the Assembly, as provided for in Article 82(2) of the Chilean Constitution.
- The Court had been asked to declare the Rome Statute unconstitutional as a whole.
- With regard to the status of human rights treaties under domestic law, the Court reaffirmed, on the basis of a systematic and coherent examination of the relevant constitutional norms, that one could not maintain that such treaties amended contrary constitutional provisions or were equal in rank to such provisions.
- If a treaty contained norms contrary to the Constitution, it could only be validly incorporated into domestic law through constitutional reform.
- Having concluded that the Rome Statute contained provisions that were incompatible with the Chilean Constitution, the Court ruled that constitutional reform was required before the Statute could be approved by the National Congress and ratified by the President of the Republic.
SUMMARY OF THE OPINION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
Complementary jurisdiction (ICC Arts 1, 17 and 20)
- The Court noted that, although Article 1 of the Statute stated that the ICC's jurisdiction was complementary to national criminal jurisdictions, the Statute did not define the nature of that complementarity.
- It was argued before the Court that the principle of complementarity meant that the Statute gave preference to States which, in accordance with the principles of nationality or territoriality, were in a position to exercise their domestic criminal jurisdiction to punish the crimes mentioned in the Statute.
- The Court noted, however, that a close examination of the Statute showed that the ICC could challenge the findings of national courts and, consequently, overturn their decisions and, in certain specific circumstances where national courts were not genuinely prosecuting, act as a substitute.
- The Court thus concluded that the jurisdiction established by the Statute, one which entitles the ICC to revise national court decisions or substitute for national jurisdictions, was more than complementary.
- In fact, the Statute had set up a new jurisdiction that was not provided for in the Chilean Constitution. Other international courts set up by treaties, such as the American Convention on Human Rights or the Statute of the International Court of Justice, did not exercise any supervisory powers over the decisions of national courts.
- From the foregoing, it appeared that the characteristics of the ICC were those of a supranational court.
- Hence, for the ICC to be considered as a court competent to try crimes committed in Chile, its powers should be incorporated into domestic law through a constitutional amendment.
Pardon and amnesty
- The Court noted that the Constitution of Chile expressly designated the authorities empowered to grant pardons and amnesties.
- In that respect, the Statute was incompatible with Chilean constitutional norms since it restricted the power of the President of the Republic to grant individual pardons and deprived the legislature of its ability to adopt laws granting general pardons or amnesties in relation to war crimes that were subject to the ICC's jurisdiction.
- A constitutional breach could thus occur if the ICC did not recognize pardons or amnesties granted or decreed by the competent national authorities.
Irrelevance of official capacity (ICC Art. 27)
- The Court found that the provisions of the Constitution on the privileges of parliamentarians and the prerogatives of magistrates of superior courts and the public prosecutor and his regional representatives would be without effect under the Statute since that system would disappear if proceedings took place directly before the ICC.
- Such a result would be incompatible with the Chilean Constitution.
Powers of investigation of the prosecutor in the territory of a State Party (ICC Arts 54 and 99)
- The Statute gave the ICC prosecutor certain powers to investigate in the territory of a State Party, to collect and examine evidence, to summon and question victims, witnesses and any other persons whose testimony was relevant to the investigation.
- Those provisions were contrary to the norms of the Constitution, which vested the public prosecutor's office with the sole and exclusive power to direct investigations of acts that constituted criminal offences.
Catat Ulasan