Tokens: 3
.
Judge
Myjer
in
his
concurring
opinion
argues
that
the
Court
is
justified
in
its
approach
in
applying
Article
7
§
2
in
cases
in
which
the
applicants
had
links
with
Nazi
crimes
and
thus
fell
within
the
scope
of
the
Nuremberg
principles
.
This
case
is
allegedly
different
since
the
applicant
belonged
to
the
Allied
powers
fighting
against
the
Nazis
.
The
legal
basis
for
such
an
approach
is
unclear
.
Why
should
criminal
responsibility
depend
on
which
side
those
guilty
of
war
crimes
were
fighting
on
?
There
is
certainly
nothing
in
the
Convention
itself
to
limit
the
application
of
Article
7
to
Nazi
crimes
alone
.
On
the
contrary
the
Article
is
drafted
broadly
and
with
a
specific
purpose
as
the
travaux
préparatoires
amply
show
.
True
enough
,
today
the
Convention
covers
many
more
States
then
at
the
time
of
its
drafting
.
However
,
now
that
this
expansion
has
taken
place
,
does
that
mean
that
more
recent
States
Parties
have
different
rights
and
obligations
under
Article
7
?
Or
,
in
other
words
,
that
the
Convention
should
operate
with
double
standards
?
We
do
not
think
so
.
In
the
case
of
Kolk
and
Kislyiy
v.
Estonia
(
dec
.
)
,
nos
.
23052/04
and
24018/04
,
ECHR
2006‑I
,
the
Court
clearly
ruled
that
the
Nuremberg
principles
had
universal
validity
despite
the
limited
scope
of
the
Tribunal
's
jurisdiction
ratione
personae
at
the
time
(
pp
.
8
-
9
)
.
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
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O