Chapter 7 • The Right to a Fair Trial: Part II – From Trial to Final Judgement Lastly, articles 9 and 10 of the respective Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, as well as article 20 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, also provide protection against double jeopardy for crimes within the jurisdiction of the respective courts. However, under the Statutes of the Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, exceptions exist for persons having been tried by national courts for an act characterized as “an ordinary crime” rather than a “serious” violation of international humanitarian law and, further, if “the national court proceedings were not impartial or independent, were designed to shield the accused from international criminal responsibility, or the case was not diligently prosecuted” (see art. 9(2) and art. 10(2) of the respective Statutes). Article 20(3) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court also provides for exceptions for such other court proceedings which had the “purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court”, or if such proceedings were otherwise “not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice”. Article 14(7) of the Covenant – like the European Convention – only prohibits double jeopardy “with regard to an offence adjudicated in a given State”; it does not guarantee ne bis in idem “with regard to the national jurisdictions of two or more States”.198 It is clear that, when a domestic appellate court has already quashed a second indictment, thus vindicating the principle of ne bis in idem, there has been no violation of, for instance, article 14(7) of the Covenant.199 ***** With regard to the principle of ne bis in idem as guaranteed by article 8(4) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has explained that it “is intended to protect the rights of individuals who have been tried for specific facts from being subjected to a new trial for the same cause”, but, unlike “the formula used by other international rights protection instruments, ... the American Convention uses the expression ‘the same cause’, which is a much broader term in the victim’s favour”.200 This means, for instance, that, if a person has been acquitted by military courts on charges of treason, it is contrary to article 8(4) of the Convention subsequently to try that person in the civil courts, on the same facts, albeit with a different qualification such as terrorism.201 Indeed, in the case of Loayza Tamayo, the Court also held that the Decree Laws containing the crimes of “terrorism” and “treason” were in themselves contrary to article 8(4), since they referred “to actions not 198 Communication No. 204/1986, A. P. v. Italy (Decision adopted on 2 November 1987), in UN doc. GAOR, A/43/40, p. 244, para. 7.3. 199 Communication No. 277/1988, Teran Jijón v. Ecuador (Views adopted on 26 March 1992), GAOR, A/47/40, p. 272, para. 5.4. 200 I-A Court HR, Loayza Tamayo Case v. Peru, judgment of September 17, 1977, OAS doc. OAS/Ser.L/V/III.39, doc. 5, 1997 Annual Report I-A Court HR, p. 213, para. 66. 201 Ibid., pp. 213-215, paras. 66-77. 298 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers