Tokens: 7
.
There
should
,
of
course
,
be
an
answer
to
the
parties
’
arguments
concerning
the
statute
of
limitations
,
seen
as
a
purely
technical
issue
more
appropriately
intertwined
with
the
fairness
of
proceedings
,
and
with
Article
6
of
the
Convention
.
And
this
is
,
to
our
mind
,
that
while
,
admittedly
,
the
question
of
prescriptibility
was
not
necessarily
resolved
in
1944
–
although
this
did
not
afford
the
applicant
the
possibility
of
taking
advantage
of
such
a
lacuna
–
the
ensuing
developments
,
after
the
Second
World
War
,
have
nevertheless
clearly
demonstrated
that
the
international
community
not
only
consolidated
its
position
in
strongly
condemning
heinous
war
crimes
,
but
also
gradually
formulated
detailed
rules
–
including
procedural
ones
–
dealing
with
the
way
in
which
such
crimes
should
be
dealt
with
by
international
law
.
These
developments
constitute
an
uninterrupted
chain
of
legal
productivity
,
which
leaves
little
room
to
consider
that
the
international
system
was
not
prepared
to
pursue
the
condemnation
of
crimes
committed
during
the
war
;
at
that
stage
,
of
course
,
the
silence
on
the
issue
of
prescriptibility
was
deafening
.
This
can
also
be
established
from
the
adoption
of
the
1968
Convention
,
which
“
affirmed
”
the
imprescriptibility
of
these
crimes
.
It
is
exactly
this
chain
of
events
which
has
allowed
the
Latvian
government
to
prosecute
and
punish
the
applicant
for
the
crimes
he
committed
.
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