jurisdiction for crimes against humanity with regard to an Argentine citizen. 339 In France, 340 Italy 341 and Germany 342 cases involving crimes against humanity were filed and concluded. 339 Audiencia Nacional, Criminal Chamber, Third Section. Judgment of April 19, 2005, No. 16/2005, paras. 5.3, 6.1 and 6.3: “The reason for the usefulness of the existence of crimes against humanity is precisely that it guarantees their prosecution; above all, owing to the extreme difficulties or impossibility of the domestic prosecution of this type of crime and the interest of the international community that such crimes should be prosecuted and punished, according less importance to their specific legal definition, which may be taken care of by domestic laws, but rather establishing an effective international prosecution system. […] Indeed, one of the essential characteristics of crimes against humanity – from our point of view the one that truly singularizes them – is that they may be prosecuted internationally, over and above the principle of territoriality. It is true that the most neutral and least complicated method, from the point of view of international relations between States, is that it is a general or “ad hoc” international court that prosecutes them. However, the essential point is, let us repeat, that this international prosecution, even though it is complementary or subsidiary in nature to the ineffective or inexistent domestic prosecution, is implemented, Thus, when it has not been possible to implement prosecution by an international court due either to its inexistence or to another reason, the principle of necessary prosecution and of the possibility of international prosecution of such crimes remains intact; therefore, in these cases, it is admissible that a national jurisdiction acts in substitution of the international jurisdiction, performing its functions. In essence, there are few differences in the merits or substance between one situation or the other, because the determinant factor is the international nature of the crime and the necessity of prosecuting it assumed by the international community, and if the international community does not directly contribute the means, and does not derogate these basic principles of co-existence, it can be said that not only it is de facto, but also de jure, allowing this action of the domestic jurisdiction to become an international action. […] The action of the Spanish jurisdiction in implementation of the principle of universality has been determined by the lack of effective action of Argentine justice, which has resulted in a situation of impunity of those criminally responsible for the facts, a situation that, contrary to what has happened in other countries, has become irreversible, unless the laws of “full stop” and due obedience are definitively annulled. […] In addition, in this case the action of the Spanish jurisdiction to criminally prosecute the facts is also justified by the existence of Spanish victims. The existence of these victims has been verified in the description of the proven facts, because these were individuals who were detained in the ESMA at the time that the accused was based there. It is true that there is no information that he had any type of direct connection to them, but they were directly affected by his acts, which were inserted in the oft-mentioned ‘dirty war organized against the subversion.’” 340 Among others, Court of Cassation, France, Criminal Chamber. Inadmissibility of cassation appeal. Judgment of June 3, 1998, Case of Klaus Barbie, Appeal No. 87-84240. 341 Cf. Case of Captain SS Erich Priebke. Extradited from Argentina to Italy on November 2, 1995. See Federal Court of Bariloche, May 31, 1995, and Federal Appeals Chamber, August 23, 1995, and Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, November 2, 1995. Final conviction by the Rome Military Tribunal, on July 22, 1997. The judgment declared that crimes against humanity were not subject to statutory limitations, based on jus cogens, even though Italy had not ratified the 1968 Convention on Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations. 342 See. Among others, Superior Court of Justice of Düsseldorf. Case of Nikola Jorgic, Judgment of September 26, 1997, IV-26/96 2 StE 8/96. 78