Tokens: The
majority
found
that
the
applicants
were
convicted
on
account
of
acts
which
constituted
at
the
material
time
offences
defined
with
sufficient
accessibility
and
foreseeability
by
the
international
rules
on
human
rights
protection
.
In
that
respect
,
the
majority
relied
on
international
law
rules
on
the
protection
of
the
right
to
life
and
the
freedom
of
movement
.
As
regards
the
applicants
’
individual
criminal
responsibility
for
the
breaches
of
those
rules
,
the
majority
relied
on
Article
95
of
the
GDR
’s
Criminal
Code
which
provided
that
individual
criminal
responsibility
was
to
be
borne
by
those
who
violated
the
GDR
’s
international
obligations
in
terms
of
human
rights
and
fundamental
freedoms
.
In
other
words
,
the
majority
,
in
deciding
whether
the
conduct
of
the
applicants
constituted
“
a
criminal
offence
under
international
law
”
,
relied
on
obligations
under
international
law
binding
the
State
of
the
GDR
and
,
as
regards
the
individual
criminal
responsibility
of
the
applicants
,
the
majority
relied
on
the
domestic
law
of
the
GDR
.
I
do
not
agree
with
that
approach
.
I
believe
that
when
Article
7
speaks
about
a
“
criminal
offence
under
international
law
”
,
it
clearly
means
an
offence
which
is
made
criminal
directly
by
international
law
both
as
regards
the
prohibited
conduct
as
well
as
the
individual
criminal
responsibility
for
such
conduct
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O