Komandna odgovornost - istorijat, Rimski statut i jugoslovensko krivično pravo

Abstract

Autor razmatra pitanje nastanka krivičnopravne koncepcije komandne odgovornosti, rešenja Rimskog statuta i jugoslovenskog krivičnog prava - kako pozitivnog, tako i predviđenih novela. U radu se poklanja pažnja i rešavanju konkretnih dokaznih problema koji se odnose na komandnu odgovornost kao institut materijalnog krivičnog prava. Pravila koja se odnose na komandnu odgovornost zaista olakšavaju konkretne probleme koji nužno nastaju na planu dokazivanja odgovornosti vojnih zapovednika, kao i civilnih autoriteta, ali se njima u velikoj meri odstupa od nekih klasičnih postavki krivičnog prava, pre svega u odnosu na subjektivni karakter odgovornosti. Očigledno je da su temelji komandne odgovornosti u Rimskom statutu (a što formalnopravno obavezuje našu zemlju), znatno prošireni u odnosu na rešenja klasičnog krivičnog prava i u poređenju sa krivičnim zakonima većine evropskih država. U nekim svojim segmentima komandna odgovornost sadrži elemente objektivne odgovornosti koja nije tipična za krivično pravo čije je jedno od osnovnih polazišta individualna i subjektivna krivična odgovornost. Koncept komandne odgovornosti koji je predviđen Rimskim statutom i koji se inkorporiše u nacionalna zakonodavstva država koje su taj Statut prihvatile, iako u nekim elementima suprotan klasičnim krivičnopravnim učenjima o krivičnog odgovornosti, može da deluje u određenoj meri preventivno u odnosu na potencijalne učinioce krivičnih dela koji se nalaze na komandnim funkcijama, ali samo pod neophodnim uslovom da "međunarodna pravda" zaista bude međunarodnog karaktera.

The author analyses the problem of origin of the criminal law conception of responsibility of commanders, the solutions of the Rome Statute and of the Yugoslav criminal law -the positive law solutions, as well as the expected innovations. Introduction of this institute into the national systems of criminal legislation, particularly relating to the transfer of the relevant norms of the Rome Statute into those legislative systems, is one of the most conspicuous examples of the specific influence of the international law upon the national legal systems, particularly because the direct effect of the international legal rules in relation to 531 national criminal law systems was usually looked at in relation to specific incriminations -the so-called international crimes. Historical development of the conception of responsibility of commanders is closely connected to the development of the idea of international criminal law, starting from the initial phases of that idea, to be followed by the trials against the leaders of the defeated Axis Powers, functioning of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals in the nineties of the last century, as well as at the beginning of the twenty-first-century, until the establishing of the Permanent International Criminal Court. The decisive influence upon the development of the institute of responsibility of commanders was effected by the trial against the Japanese general Yamashita. The Rome Statute (as well as the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda) develops in Article 28 of the Rome Statute the concept of responsibility of commanders upon the model of the Yamashita case, but that this is a controversial concept of liability is proved by the fact that several countries, although accepting the Rome Statute, have pointed out that the solution in the Article 28 does not correspond to their legal tradition according to which a commander that in no way in took part in the committal of a crime (and did not even know of its preparation) may be held responsible for a specific crime against official duty, but not for the crime itself (e.g. genocide). Those forms of responsibility of commanders from the Article 28 of the Rome Statute, which for technical reasons cannot be successfully resolved by the general rules on complicity of by the rules concerning acting upon orders, are expected to be incorporated into the Yugoslav criminal legislation, which was in fact done by the Article 33 of the Amendments Bill which provides for a new crime of: "Failure to undertake measures of prevention of committal of crimes against humanity and international law", which incrimination is practically completely harmonized with the Article 28 of the Rome Statute, particularly concerning the content. Namely, it provides for criminal liability of a commander or of a person having practical control, if the persons under his command or control commit certain international crimes. But technically he is not liable for a crime or accomplice, but only for his omissions that have effectively enabled or alleviated committal of such crimes.