Commission, 164 reiterated the notion that “crimes against humanity threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world.” It also recalled the “duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction with respect to crimes against humanity, [c]onsidering that, because crimes against humanity must not go unpunished, the effective prosecution of such crimes must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation, including with respect to extradition and mutual legal assistance” (Preamble). 165 Regarding the substantive aspects of the prohibited conducts, the Draft articles included a definition of crimes against humanity that was very similar to that in the Rome Statute. It also established that each State must take the necessary measures to ensure that, under its criminal law, the offenses referred in the draft articles are not be subject to any statute of limitations, and are punishable by appropriate penalties that take into account their grave nature (Article 6). 166 220. According to the International Law Commission, the prohibition of crimes against humanity is clearly accepted and recognized as a peremptory rule of international law. 167 Similarly, the International Court of Justice has indicated that the prohibition of certain acts, such as torture “has become a peremptory norm (jus cogens),” 168 which, furthermore, indicates that the prohibition to commit such acts, that constitute crimes against humanity, in a widespread and systematic manner is also a peremptory norm of jus cogens. 169 In this regard, the International Law Commission has explicitly recognized that “[t]he characterization of crimes against humanity as ‘crimes under international law’ indicates that they exist as crimes whether or not the conduct has been criminalized under national law.” In this regard, it indicated that “[t]he Nürnberg Charter defined crimes against humanity as the commission of certain acts “whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated’ (art. 6(c)).” 170 221. This was the exact interpretation of the Inter-American Court in the case of Almonacid Arellano (supra para. 212), and has been applied to the instant case also. Moreover, it is 164 Cf. UN. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-ninth session (1 May-2 June and 3 July-4 August 2017). A/72/10, p. 9, para. 45. Available at https://undocs.org/en/A/72/10. 165 UN. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-ninth session (1 May-2 June and 3 July4 August 2017). A/72/10, p.9. Cf. UN. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-ninth session (1 May-2 June and 3 July-4 August 2017). A/72/10, p. 13. 166 167 Cf. UN. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 23 April-1 June and 2 July-10 August 2001), A/56/10 p. 86. Paragraph (5) of the commentary on art. 26 of the Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts indicates that […] Those peremptory norms that are clearly accepted and recognized include the prohibitions of […] crimes against humanity.” Available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/ documentation/english/reports/a_56_10.pdf. See, also, UN. International Law Commission. Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission finalized by Martti Koskenniemi. A/CN.4/L.682. April 13, 2006, para. 374. This indicates that “Overall, the most frequently cited candidates for the status of jus cogens include: (e) crimes against humanity,” Available at http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf. 168 Cf. International Court of Justice (hereinafter “ICJ”). Questions relating to the obligation to prosecute or extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of July 20, 2012, p. 457, para. 99. Cf. ICJ. Jurisdictional immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment of February 3, 2012, p. 141, para. 95; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (hereinafter “ICTY”). Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgment of December 10, 1998, case No. IT-95-17/1-T, para. 153; European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “ECHR”). Case of Al-Adsani v. The United Kingdom [GS], No. 35763/97. Judgment of November 21, 2001, para. 61. 169 170 Cf. UN. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixty-ninth session (1 May-2 June and 3 July-4 August 2017). A/72/10, p. 26, commentary 4 on Article 2. 48