La normativa venezolana y la responsabilidad del superior a la luz del Estatuto Roma
Loading...
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2021
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas
Citations
Exportar
Citation
Thairi Moya Sánchez, “La normativa venezolana y la responsabilidad del superior a la luz del Estatuto Roma,” en La Corte Penal Internacional y las situaciones sobre Venezuela, Víctor Rodríguez Cedeño, Soranib Hernández de Deffendini, Antonio Pastor Palomar, Blas Jesús Imbroda Ortiz, Milagros Betancourt Catalá y Thairi Moya Sánchez (Lima: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas [UPC], 2021), 71–80, https://doi.org/10.19083/978-612-318-379-0 .
Abstract
Este capítulo examina la figura de la responsabilidad del superior (o responsabilidad de mando) en el Derecho penal internacional, con énfasis en su consolidación jurisprudencial y su formulación en el artículo 28 del Estatuto de Roma. A partir de antecedentes relevantes (v.gr., Yamashita y desarrollos en tribunales internacionales), se presenta el tránsito hacia una responsabilidad centrada en la omisión: el deber de prevenir, reprimir/sancionar y/o poner los hechos en conocimiento de autoridades competentes. En la segunda parte, el análisis se traslada a Venezuela y distingue los superiores de iure en el ámbito militar y en estructuras civiles vinculadas a órganos de seguridad, revisando bases constitucionales y reglamentarias para identificar cadenas jerárquicas y deberes funcionales. El capítulo concluye que el ordenamiento venezolano carece de una regulación clara y específica que permita configurar y perseguir penalmente, como tal, la responsabilidad del superior (militar o civil) por crímenes internacionales, y subraya la necesidad de modernización normativa interna para asegurar coherencia con las obligaciones derivadas del Estatuto de Roma.
This chapter analyses superior (command) responsibility in international criminal law, focusing on its jurisprudential development and its codification in Article 28 of the Rome Statute. Drawing on key precedents (e.g., Yamashita and subsequent international tribunal practice), it highlights a liability model grounded primarily in omission, structured around duties to prevent crimes, to punish/repress them, and/or to submit the matter to competent authorities. The second part assesses the Venezuelan framework by identifying de jure superiors within the military jurisdiction and within civil structures associated with security institutions, examining constitutional and regulatory provisions that shape hierarchical authority and functional duties. The chapter concludes that Venezuela lacks a clear and precise domestic norm capable of operationalizing superior responsibility (military or civilian) for international crimes, and stresses the need for domestic legal modernization to align with obligations arising from the Rome Statute.
This chapter analyses superior (command) responsibility in international criminal law, focusing on its jurisprudential development and its codification in Article 28 of the Rome Statute. Drawing on key precedents (e.g., Yamashita and subsequent international tribunal practice), it highlights a liability model grounded primarily in omission, structured around duties to prevent crimes, to punish/repress them, and/or to submit the matter to competent authorities. The second part assesses the Venezuelan framework by identifying de jure superiors within the military jurisdiction and within civil structures associated with security institutions, examining constitutional and regulatory provisions that shape hierarchical authority and functional duties. The chapter concludes that Venezuela lacks a clear and precise domestic norm capable of operationalizing superior responsibility (military or civilian) for international crimes, and stresses the need for domestic legal modernization to align with obligations arising from the Rome Statute.