Valta ja rikosoikeudellinen vastuu – tuomioistuinten toimivalta käsitellä valtiojohdon tekemiä kansainvälisiä rikoksia

The criminal jurisdiction of national and international courts over the international crimes of state leadership There are several instances where state leadership can be held criminally liable for international core crimes. In terms of national courts, state leaders can be tried either in their home state or another state. International alternatives include the International Criminal Court, an ad hoc criminal tribunal, a hybrid tribunal or a so-called internationalised tribunal. The jurisdictional basis of each  court rests either in customary law or international arrangements, depending on the court concerned. Each alternative has its pros and cons. The home state typically has numerous jurisdictional bases over crimes perpetrated by its leaders, but its capacity is restricted by politics and the leadership’s constitutional privileges. Trials in home states are also subject to bias. Other states, while being able to ground their jurisdiction in the universality principle, must consider the immunity of foreign state leaders. The significance of  international tribunals has greatly risen since the 1990s, but establishing jurisdiction and securing arrests remain major concerns. International procedures are also often delayed and continue to face challenges based on the principle of legality. The issues noted in the article emphasize that international criminal law is not an effective way to influence present conflicts, and that discussions on criminal liability pertaining to present conflicts are bound to remain speculative

Power and criminal liability - jurisdiction of courts over international crimes committed by state leaders

Valtiojohto voidaan saattaa rikosoikeudelliseen vastuuseen kansainvälisistä rikoksista useissa eri instansseissa. Kansallisina vaihtoehtoina ovat valtiojohdon syyttäminen siinä valtiossa, jonka valtiojohdosta on kyse (kotivaltio) tai vieraassa valtiossa. Kansainvälisinä vaihtoehtoina tulevat kyseeseen Kansainvälinen rikostuomioistuin, ad hoc -kansainvälinen rikostuomioistuin, hybridimuotoinen tai ns. kansainvälistetty tuomioistuin. Toimivalta perustuu tapaoikeudellisiin liittymiin tai kansainvälisiin järjestelyihin, jotka riippuvat siitä, mistä tuomioistuimesta on kyse. Kussakin vaihtoehdossa on omat hyvät ja huonot puolensa. Kotivaltiolla on valtiojohtonsa tekoihin useita liittymiä, mutta sen oikeudenkäyttöä rajaavat poliittiset valtasuhteet ja valtiojohdon perustuslaillinen erityisasema, ja haasteena on puolueettoman oikeudenkäynnin aikaansaaminen. Vieraat valtiot voivat perustaa toimivaltansa universaaliperiaatteeseen, mutta niiden tulee kunnioittaa valtiojohdon koskemattomuutta. Kansainväliset tuomioistuimet ovat nousseet tärkeäksi työkaluksi 1990-luvulta alkaen, mutta niiden ongelmina ovat asioiden vireille saaminen, laillisuusperiaate, tekijöiden kiinniottaminen sekä prosessien viivästyminen. Artikkelissa tehdyt huomiot korostavat, että kansainvälinen rikosoikeus ei ole tehokas tapa vaikuttaa käynnissä oleviin konflikteihin, ja että keskustelu niihin liittyvästä rikosoikeudellisesta vastuusta on luonteeltaan spekulatiivista.There are several instances where state leadership can be held criminally liable for international core crimes. In terms of national courts, state leaders can be tried either in their home state or another state. International alternatives include the International Criminal Court, an ad hoc criminal tribunal, a hybrid tribunal or a so-called internationalised tribunal. The jurisdictional basis of each court rests either in customary law or international arrangements, depending on the court concerned. Each alternative has its pros and cons. The home state typically has numerous jurisdictional bases over crimes perpetrated by its leaders, but its capacity is restricted by politics and the leadership’s constitutional privileges. Trials in home states are also subject to bias. Other states, while being able to ground their jurisdiction in the universality principle, must consider the immunity of foreign state leaders. The significance of international tribunals has greatly risen since the 1990s, but establishing jurisdiction and securing arrests remain major concerns. International procedures are also often delayed and continue to face challenges based on the principle of legality. The issues noted in the article emphasize that international criminal law is not an effective way to influence present conflicts, and that discussions on criminal liability pertaining to present conflicts are bound to remain speculativ

Quality registry improves the data of chronic ulcers : Validation of Tampere Wound Registry

Quality registries are potential tools for improving health care documentation, but the quality and completeness of each registry should be ensured. This study aimed to evaluate the completion rate (completeness) and accuracy of data, first contact-to-registration time (timeliness), and case coverage of the Tampere Wound Registry (TWR) to assess whether it can be reliably used in clinical practice and for research purposes. Data from all 923 patients registered in the TWR between 5 June 2018 and 31 December 2020 were included in the analysis of data completeness, while data accuracy, timeliness and case coverage were analysed in those registered during the year 2020. In all analyses values over 80% were considered good and values over 90% excellent. The study showed that the overall completeness of the TWR was 81% and overall accuracy was 93%. Timeliness achieved 86% within the first 24 h, and case coverage was found to be 91%. When completion of seven selected variables was compared between TWR and patient medical records, the TWR was found to be more complete in five out of seven variables. In conclusion, the TWR proved to be a reliable tool for health care documentation and an even more reliable data source than patient medical records.Peer reviewe

Long-term Mortality among Patients with Chronic Ulcers

Chronic ulcers cause a significant burden to patients and society. This study evaluated long-term mortality among patients with chronic ulcers diagnosed at a dermatology clinic between 1980 and 2010. The mortality risk and causes of death of 3,489 patients with ulcers were compared with a matched reference group of 10,399 individuals, and factors associated with increased mortality risk were examined. Long-term mortality was increased in patients with chronic ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 1.74) and in both males and females (HR 1.99 and 1.62, respectively). Diabetes was the most relevant underlying cause of death (HR 8.98), and of the immediate causes of death, sepsis was strongly associated with mortality (HR 5.86). The mortality risk was highest among those with arterial ulcers (HR 2.85), but also increased in patients with atypical, mixed and venous leg ulcers. In conclusion, patients with chronic ulcers are at an increased mortality risk irrespective of age, sex and ulcer aetiology.publishedVersionPeer reviewe