300. In the Americas, courts of Mexico, 343 Argentina, 344 United States of America 345 and Canada 346 have ruled on this matter, and corroborated its application in the criminal sphere. In addition, domestic laws of Bolivia, 347 Ecuador, 348 El Salvador 349 and Panama 350 and the Argentine Constitution 351 have recognized that principle. 301. Brazil, for its part, indicated that it was in favor of universal jurisdiction before the United Nations General Assembly. According to Brazil, “the aim of universal jurisdiction was to deny impunity to individuals responsible for serious crimes defined by international law which, by their gravity, shocked the conscience of all humanity and violated peremptory norms of international law. As a basis for jurisdiction, it was of an exceptional nature compared with the more consolidated principles of territoriality and nationality. Although the exercise of 343 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Amparo review. Judgment of June 10, 2003, Plaintiff: Ricardo Miguel Cavallo, No. 140/2002. 344 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Argentina Appeal. Judgment of June 14, 2005, Case of Julio Héctor Simón et al., case No. 17.768, Opinion of Judge Antonio Boggiano, consideranda 28, 29 and 31: “That, even before this international jurisprudence, crimes against the ‘law of Nations’ were condemned by customary international law and, at the same time, by our Constitution. The gravity of such crimes may provide grounds for universal jurisdiction, as revealed by art. 118 of the Constitution, which establishes the crimes against the law of Nations beyond the borders of the Nation and orders Congress to determine, by a special law, the place where the trial should be held. This presumes that such crimes can be tried in the Republic and, it should be understood, also in other foreign States. Also, that such crimes under international law, against mankind and the law of Nations, owing to their gravity, harm the international order, so that art. 118 should not only be seen as a jurisdictional norm, but substantially, of recognition of the substantive gravity of those crimes (“Nadel” case recorded in Judgments: 316:567, dissenting opinion of Judge Boggiano).” […] “That according to the concept of universal jurisdiction, without needing to giving an opinion here on comparative foreign practices, such crimes could be tried outside the country in which they were committed. Crimes under international law may provide grounds for the universal jurisdiction of any State pursuant to international custom because they violate a norm of ius cogens systematically, violating international law.” […] “That, in this hypothesis, these crimes could be tried in one or more foreign States and not in Argentina, with the consequent infringement of the jurisdictional sovereignty of our country.” Federal Criminal Oral Court No. 1 of San Martín. Judgment for crimes against humanity. August 12, 2009, General Riveros et al. in the case of Floreal Edgardo Avellaneda et al.: “Regarding non bis in idem and res judicata, which the defense Counsel have also posited, in ‘Mazzeo,’ the Court stated that ‘under international humanitarian law the axiological principles of interpretation acquire pre-eminence to define the guarantee of both non bis in idem and res judicata.’ That this is so “insofar as the purpose of both the statutes of the international criminal courts and the principles that inspire unversal jurisdiction is to ensure that heinous crimes do not remain unpunished. Consequently, without prejudice to giving priority to the national authorities to conduct the trial; if such local trials become a subterfuge to ensure impunity, the subsidiary jurisdiction of international criminal law comes into play with a new trial.” Appeal. Judgment of November 2, 1995, Case of Erich Priebke No. 16,063/94, considerandum 4 and Concurring opinion of Judge Julio S. Nazareno and Eduardo Moline O’Connor, considerandum 43: “That this circumstance in no way signifies that the international indictment is left to the intention of individual States expressed in conventions, because it is the instrument that establishes the principles and practices of the legal conscience of mankind from which no State may deviate insofar as the formulation of general international law establishes, with regard to this matter, a sufficiently clear description of the punishable conduct, and also that when it is committed it merits criminal punishment.” […] “That, the fact that the national legislator has not implemented ‘adequate criminal sanctions’ for this type of crimes does not obstruct the exercise of the other commitments assumed in the international sphere with regard to extradition, because that type of procedure is not aimed at determining the guilt or innocence of the individual requested, but only to establish, as noted in considerandum 12, whether his right to remain in the country should cede to the request for international cooperation.” 345 United States Court of Appeal, Sixth Circuit. Judgment of October 31, 1985, Demjanjuk v. Petrowsky, 776 F. 2d 571. 346 Supreme Court of Canada. Judgment of March 24, 1994, R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Chamber. Judgment of May 22, 2009, Prosecutor v. Désiré Munyaneza, case No. 50073-002500-052. 347 Penal Code of Bolivia, Law No. 1,768 of March 10, 1997, article 1.7. 348 Penal Code of the Republic of Ecuador. article 14. 349 Penal Code of El Salvador, Law No. 1030 of April 26, 1997, article 10. 350 Penal Code of Panama, Law No. 14 of May 18, 2007, article 19. 351 Argentine Constitution, Law No. 24,430 of December 15, 1994, article 118. 79