Abstract
This chapter focuses on the conflicts between the criminal offence of historical denialism and history. It dissects the three main problematic consequences of criminalisation: the risk of tampering with historical reconstructions; the risk of establishing one historical truth only and the risk of introducing a hierarchy among historical memories. First, the analysis focuses on a few landmark cases adjudicated by French courts. The French legal experience is paradigmatic of the problematics emerging from the criminalisation of historical denialism. Second, two judgments of the ECtHR are examined. The Garaudy case epitomises the consequences of the ‘original’ form of historical denialism. The Perinçek case demonstrates the risks involved in adopting a ‘broader’ paradigm of historical denialism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See Traverso 2006, p. 9 et seq. and p. 17 et seq.
- 3.
The Law no. 90-615 of 13 July 1990 (the so-called ‘Gayssot Act’) modified Article 24 bis of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881.
- 4.
It is worth mentioning that France is to be considered a unique historical case, due to the fact that the 1789 Declaration (the Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen) already limited freedom of expression.
- 5.
This relatively recent notion is defined as ‘Laws [that], beyond the differences in their content, seem to proceed from the same intention: to tell history, even to qualify it, by using contemporary legal concepts such as genocide or crime against humanity, in one way or another, to do justice through the recognition of past suffering’ (‘lois, [qui] au-delà des différences de leur contenu, semblent procéder d’une même volonté: ‘dire’ l’histoire, voire la qualifier, en recourant à des concepts juridiques contemporains comme le génocide ou le crime contre l’humanité, pour, d’une manière ou d’une autre, faire œuvre de justice au travers de la reconnaissance de souffrances passées’, see Rapport d’information de l’Assemblée nationale (the so-called Accoyer Report, named after the President of the National Assembly), titled ‘Gathering the Nation around a shared memory’ (Rassembler la Nation autour d’une mémoire partagée), no. 1262, 18 November 2008. There are many studies on such provisions. See Hochmann 2013, pp. 57–69; contributions from the journal Droit et cultures titled Espaces de politique mémorielles. Enjeux de mémoire, no. 66, 2013; Hochmann 2012, p. 133 et seq.; Mallet-Poujol 2012, p. 219 et seq.; Michel 2010; Morange 2009, p. 154 et seq. On public politics of memory in France: Baruch 2013; Fraisseix 2006, p. 483 et seq; Garibian 2006, p. 158 et seq.; Frangi 2005, p. 241 et seq. Concerning criticism of the French historians, see Nora and Chandernagor 2008; Rémond 2006; Appel des juristes contre les lois mémorielles, contained in Assemblée Nationale, Rapport d’information fait en application de l’article 145 du règlement au nom de la mission d’information sur les questions mémorielles, Président-Rapporteur M. Bertrand Accoyer (enregistré à la Présidence de l'Assemblée nationale le 18 novembre 2008), pp. 475 ss. There are numerous criticisms made by historians against the intervention within the field of public memory: see footnote no. 40 of Chap. 5. Note that remembrance laws are backward-looking, that is they focus on the past. Conversely, laws that protect ‘future generations’ are forward-looking, and thus focus on the future.
- 6.
See Law no. 2000-644, 10 July 2000, http://www.senat.fr/leg/ppl99-244.html
- 7.
See Law no. 2005-158, 23 February 2005 (Loi portant reconnaissance de la Nation et contribution nationale en faveur des Français repatriés).
- 8.
For instance, see the Spanish Law no. 52/2007 on Historical Memory of 31 October 2007.
- 9.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.
- 10.
- 11.
See Article 11.
- 12.
More specifically, the law forbids publicly inciting discrimination, hatred or violence (Article 24, para 6, amended by the law of 1 July 1972), defamation (Article 32, para 2) and insult (Article 33, para 3) for belonging or not belonging to an ethnicity, race or religion. Article 24, para 3, after the 1987 amendment, also includes the offence of defending crimes against humanity, to which case law adds publications or publicly made assessments that incite the audience to view favourably or justify a crime against humanity.
- 13.
This law adds a paragraph to Article 32 of the 1881 law prohibiting defamation and insult of people belonging to a specific race or religion if intended to incite hatred among citizens and inhabitants.
- 14.
This law includes punishing instigating discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or a group on the bases of belonging or not belonging to a specific ethnicity, nation or religion. It also introduced provisions to the Criminal Code punishing discrimination, making a distinction between discrimination by a civil servant and by an individual. See Guyaz 1996, pp. 87–90; Korman 1989, p. 3404; Costa-Lascoux 1976, p. 181 et seq.
- 15.
Gayssot Act is named after the communist deputy (Jean-Claude Gayssot) who proposed it. On this Act, see Droin 2014, p. 363 et seq.; Francillon 2013a, p. 99 et seq; Francillon 2013b; Hochmann 2012; Droin 2010, p. 211 et seq.; Garibian 2008, p. 479 et seq.; Frangi 2005; Levinet 2004, p. 653; Troper 1999, p. 1239 et seq.; Tracol 1997, p. 57; Roumelian 1996, p. 10; Massias 1993, p. 183; Véron 1990.
- 16.
Note that the Freedom of the Press Act represents a specific and distinct subsystem of the Criminal Code, owing to its reference to specialised judges on the freedom of the press. Conversely, as pointed out in Chapter 1, the introduction of the offence of apology of terrorism in the Criminal Code through the Cazeneuve Law has the effect of excluding the applicability of the said regime to the new offence. With consequences on the significantly burdensome sentencing practice.
- 17.
Article 23: ‘The ones who will be punished […] are those who either through speeches, calls or threats uttered in public places or meetings, or through writings […] will have directly caused the author or the authors to commit the aforementioned action, if the provocation has been followed by an effect’ (‘Seront punis […] ceux qui par le discours, cris ou menaces proférés dans des lieux ou réunion publics, soit par des écrits […] auront directement provoqué l’auteur ou les auteurs à commettre la dite action, si la provocation a été suivie d’effet’).
- 18.
Article 23 on defamation defined as a means of diffusion, discourse in public spaces or public meetings, writings, drawings, emblems, images and paintings that are sold or distributed, put up for sale or exhibited in public places or public meetings or through posters exposed to the public.
- 19.
See Feldman 1998. For critical remarks, see Droin 2014, p. 384 et seq. Concerning the case law, see Court of Appeal of Paris, Judgment, 31 October 1990, in Gaz. Palais, 311; the 1991 judgment on the Faurisson case and the judgment of the Court of Cassation , Judgment, 23 February 1993, Bulletin criminel, no. 86, 1993, 208.
- 20.
Crim. 17 nov. 1983, in Bulletin Criminel, no. 260.
- 21.
See Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, Judgment, 9 October 1995, no. 92-83.665.
- 22.
Regarding the Lewis case in particular, TGI Paris, 21 June 1995, Forum des Association Arméniennes de France c. Lewis, Les petites affiches 117 (1995): 17, holding Bernard Lewis responsible under Article 1382 of the French Civil Code for negationism of the Armenian genocide. The Lewis case, which began with the Le Monde interview, dated 13 November 1993 and ended with the court decision of 21 June 1995, see Libération, 17 October and 19 November 1994; Le Monde, 23 June 1995 and Le Figaro, 26 June 1995. See also Arslan et al. 2017; Gunter 2011, p. 77 et seq.; Ternon 1999, pp. 237–248.
- 23.
- 24.
High Court of Paris, 24 March 1994.
- 25.
On the notion of questioning (‘contestation’), see Ader 2012, p. 236. On the possibility of punishing the ‘indulgent presentation’ (‘présentation complaisante’), see the Gollnisch case.
- 26.
Court of Appeal of Paris, Judgment, 21 January 2009, no. 08/02208.
- 27.
Court of Appeal of Paris, Judgment, 18 June 2008, no. 07/08276.
- 28.
Court of Appeal of Paris, Judgment, 11 September 2002, no. 01/01445.
- 29.
Court of Appeal of Metz, Judgment, 27 September 2000, no. 971/2000.
- 30.
Court of Appeal of Paris, Judgment, 1 April 1992, no. 5571/91.
- 31.
Court of Appeal of Paris, Judgment, 2 April 2009, no. 08/0001.
- 32.
Francillon 2010, p. 640 et seq.
- 33.
See Court of Cassation, Question Préliminaire Constitutionnalité, 7 May 2010, no. 09-80.774. Camby 2012.
- 34.
See Lapage 2013.
- 35.
The special part of the Criminal Code starts with the section on ‘Les crimes contre l’humanité’, at Articles. 211-1 et seq. See Couvrat 1993, p. 469.
- 36.
The last amendment on the matter is from 27 January 2017 and is analysed in Sect. 3.2.5.
- 37.
See Rapport Accoyer, cit., 49 et seq.
- 38.
For this reason, the historian Pierre Nora argues that this act is a resolution rather than a law. This is significant remark, if we agree with the opinion that the proliferation of remembrance laws is the consequence of the limitations of the Parliament’s prerogative, see Rapport Accoyer, cit., 23-25. See Derieux 2012, p. 6. See Maus and Bougrab 2005.
- 39.
Something similar happened in Belgium . See Grandjean 2011, p. 137 et seq.
- 40.
Emphasis added. Article 24 ter states that: ‘The criminal penalties provided for by Article 24 bis shall apply to those who have challenged or excessively minimised, by one of the means set forth in Article 23, the existence of one or more crimes of genocide as defined by Article 211-1 of the Criminal Code and recognised as such by the French law’.
- 41.
See legislative proposal no. 690, registered on February 6th 2013, on the implementation of the 2008 EU Framework Decisions into the domestic legal system, which has been presented by Valérie Boyer and others. See Droin 2014, pp. 390–391. See also legislative proposal no. 479, registered by the Presidency of the French Senate on 22 April 2014, presented by Guy Fischer and others.
- 42.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.1.
- 43.
- 44.
See Koposov 2017, p. 103 et seq.; Garibian 2013, pp. 25–56; Baruch 2013; Levade and Mathieu 2012, pp. 680–684; Hamon 2012, pp. 7–11; Roux 2012, pp. 987–993; Camby 2012, pp. 17–22; Puig 2012, pp. 78–84; Francillon 2012, pp. 179–182; Mouysset 2012, pp. 26–27; Brunet 2012, pp. 343–354; Danti-Juan 2012, pp. 399–402.
- 45.
Several authors had said that the law was unconstitutional, see for example Verpeaux 2007, p. 242.
- 46.
The claim was filed according to the French a priori constitutional review before the Constitutional Council.
- 47.
This law encroaches upon the principle of equal treatment, as it does not consider the crimes against humanity , which are punished under Article of the Criminal Code. In this sense, see also Camby 2012.
- 48.
In spite of this reference, the Council does not focus on such parameters.
- 49.
Francillon 2010 argues that the Constitutional Council should not have made reference exclusively to the right to freedom of speech, but also to the constitutional principle of the respect for human dignity.
- 50.
Badinter, Le Monde, 14 January 2012; Cassia, ‘La fin de la saga des lois mémorielles’, in Libération, 29 February 2012; Hochmann, ‘Un paradoxe de portée limitée: le Conseil Constitutionnel et le négationnisme’, in Le Monde, 20 March 2012.
- 51.
Pech 2011, p. 8 et seq. underlines both the actual and the potential impact of such a decision.
- 52.
Camby 2012 raises the question as to whether this decision concerns this specific piece of legislation or rather every existing speech crime.
- 53.
In this sense, see Camby 2012, Chap. vi.
- 54.
Ibid.
- 55.
See Commentaire, p. 12, available at: www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2012/2012647dc.htm, accessed 15 August 2017.
- 56.
This aspect is always implicitly or explicitly present in criminal trials on historical denialism. See for instance the debate on the Boyer Bill, Sect. 3.2.3.3.
- 57.
On this distinction, see Traverso 2006, p. 51.
- 58.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.5, n 100.
- 59.
Camby 2012, p. 8.
- 60.
On the problematic implication deriving from the expansion of the criminal offence, see the remarks, Dubuisson 2007, p. 164.
- 61.
As mentioned, the 1990 Gayssot Act introduces the offence of ‘contestation des crimes contre l’humanité’. From a temporal point of view, it should be emphasised that the offence of historical denialism is introduced before the remembrance laws.
- 62.
A first attempt to do so had already been carried out in 2006, but the bill was blocked in 2008. Another major initiative began in 2012 when Law no. 647 ‘Aiming at repressing the contestation of the existence of the genocides recognised by law’ (‘Visant à réprimer la contestation de l’existence des génocides reconnus par la loi’) was approved by the National Assembly on 22 December 2011 and the Senate on 23 January 2012.
- 63.
The Armenian genocide was officially recognised by France on 29 January 2001 Law no. 2001-70. On the ‘judicial derivations of history’ and the proliferation of memorial laws in France, especially since 1990, see Nora 2016, p. 60 et seq. Important is the Law no. 647 ‘Aiming at repressing the contestation of the existence of the genocides recognised by law’ (‘Visant à réprimer the contestation of the existence of the genocides reconnus par la loi’) approved by the National Assembly on 22 December 2011 and the Senate on 23 January 2012, which provided punishment for ‘who disproves or grossly trivializes the existence of one or more crimes of genocide’, 211-1 of the Criminal Code and recognised as such by French law. It was declared unconstitutional by the already mentioned decision of the Constitutional Council, Decision, 28 February 2012, n 2012-647 DC, available at the following link: http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2012/2012-647-dc/decision-n-2012-647-dc-du-28-fevrier-2012.104949.html. See Hochmann 2016.
- 64.
The original text presents further complications, due to the fact that it does not specify whether the conviction should be final or not. Furthermore, it provides for the punishment of claims concerning slavery, whether this constitutes an international crime or not.
- 65.
The measure would not apply except in the case of denial of hatred or violence and does not provide for automatic punishment of mere historical denialism, as is established in the aforementioned Law, declared unconstitutional in 2012 by the Constitutional Council . On the distinction introduced in Germany between mere/simple historical ‘denialism’ and ‘qualified ’ denialism, see Chap. 4, n 16.
- 66.
- 67.
Constitutional Council, Decision, 26 January 2017, no. 2016-745 DC, para 195.
- 68.
Ibid., para 194 exposes the contradiction between these two statements.
- 69.
Ibid., para 197. For criticism on this point, see Hochmann 2017, p. 2, available at: http://www.revuedlf.com/droit-constitutionnel/pas-de-lunettes-sous-les-oeilleres-le-conseil-constitutionnel-et-le-negationnisme/.
- 70.
Constitutional Council, Decision, 16 July 1996, no. 96-377 DC, para 196.
- 71.
Hochmann 2017, p. 2.
- 72.
As discussed in the State Council’s Public Report of 2014, INT-387525, 12 April 2013, 294, available at the following link: http://www.conseil-etat.fr/Decisions-Avis-Publications/Etudes-Publications/Rapports-Etudes/Rapport-public-2014.
- 73.
Hochmann 2017, p. 2.
- 74.
- 75.
However, the possibility of raising a question of constitutionality in the future remains.
- 76.
Hochmann 2017, p. 4.
- 77.
Ibid., p. 5. Differently, the Rwandan genocide has been the object of convictions handed down by both the ICTR and French courts; see, for instance, the life sentence for crimes against humanity and genocide imposed on Tito Barahira and Octavien Ngenzi by the Cour d’Assise de Paris, 6 July 2016, or the conviction and 25-year imprisonment sentence of Pasval Simbikangwa by the Tribunal de Bobigny, 3 December 2016.
- 78.
High Court of Lyon, 6th Correctional Chamber, George Theil, Judgment, 3 January 2006, no. 0564977.
- 79.
On memory wars , see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.2.1.3, n 62.
- 80.
High Court of Lyon, George Theil, above n 76, 36.
- 81.
It is worth noting that the Court based its Judgment on the previous version of Article 24 bis of the Freedom of the Press Act.
- 82.
In particular the cases ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Lehideux and Isorni v. France , Judgment, 23 September 1998, Application no. 24662/94 and ECtHR, Garaudy v. France, Judgment, 24 June 2003, Application no. 65831/01. See High Court of Lyon, George Theil, above n 76, p. 29.
- 83.
See High Court of Lyon, George Theil, above no. 76, p. 30.
- 84.
- 85.
See ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Lehideux and Isorni v. France , Judgment, 23 September 1998, Application no. 24662/94, paras 53, 47; ECtHR, Garaudy v. France, Judgment, 24 June 2003, Application no. 65831/01, para 28.
- 86.
This expression was used for the first time in the aforementioned judgment of the ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Lehideux and Isorni v. France, Judgment, 23 September 1998, Application no. 24662/94, para 47 and then referred to by the Court in the cited judgment.
- 87.
See para 55.
- 88.
The statements analysed in this landmark case do ‘not belong to the category of clearly established historical facts—such as the Holocaust—whose negation or revision would be removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17’ (Para. 47). According to this interpretation the protections in Article 17, the prohibition of abuse of rights, could restrict the right of free speech granted under Article 10. Hence, Article 17’s new role was only announced in Lehideux but not applied.
- 89.
ECtHR, Garaudy v. France, Judgment, 24 June 2003, Application no. 65831/01, para 26, citing ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Lehideux and Isorni v. France, Judgment, 23 September 1998, Application no. 24662/94, para 53.
- 90.
ECtHR, Garaudy v. France, Judgment, 24 June 2003, Application no. 65831/01, para 29.
- 91.
Ibid.
- 92.
Ibid. See also ECtHR, Pierre Marais v. France, Judgment, 24 June 1996, Application no. 31159/96, p. 191; ECtHR Remer v. Germany, Judgment, 6 September 1995, Application no. 25096/94.
- 93.
See Algan 2008, pp. 2237–2252. It is worth mentioning Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which punishes those who publicly denigrate the nation, state, government or legal institutions of the Turkish state. This provision has been used to attempt to punish those who recognizes and affirm the existence of the Armenian genocide. It thus stands in equal and opposite terms to the offence of denialism: equal because foresight of an autonomous offence prohibits the expression of an opinion that does not conform to an official and majority view of the memory of a historical event; opposite because in the Turkish case the affirmation of a genocide is punished and not its denial. Although the offence provided by Turkish law is antithetical (penalising affirmation and not denial), it is absolutely identical in form and structure: it is prohibited by criminal law to question a ‘historical truth ’ sanctioned as such by the State.
- 94.
The ECtHR considered the defendant’s statements as legal and ruled that the case did not apply to ECHR Article 17 (abuse clause). Article 17 ECHR states: ‘Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention’. ECtHR, Perınçek v. Switzerland, Judgment, 17 December 2013, Application no. 27510/08.
- 95.
- 96.
- 97.
- 98.
See Federal Court, 12 December 2007, ATF 6B_398/2007, in http://www.bger.ch.
- 99.
Ibid., Sect. 3.2.
- 100.
See n 94 above, para 4.3.
- 101.
Ibid., para 4.5.
- 102.
Ibid., para 5.
- 103.
Ibid., para 7.
- 104.
- 105.
- 106.
‘The Court will determine whether the applicant’s statements should be excluded from the scope of Article 10 on the basis of Article 17 of the Convention’: ECtHR, Perinçek v. Switzerland , above n 92, para 49.
- 107.
Article 10 ECHR therefore operates in unison with other provisions of the ECHR, including Article 17 ECHR. See Schabas 2015; Buyse 2014, pp. 491–503; Bartole et al. 2012; Keane 2007, pp. 641–663; van Drooghenbroeck 2001, pp. 552–553. For cases in which the European Court used Article 17 ECHR in relation to denialist statements, see Lobba 2015, pp. 62–64; ECtHR, Lehideux and Isorni v. France , Grand Chamber, above n 80, para 47. For a recent case of application of Article 17, though not strictly concerning a denialist episode, see ECtHR, M’Bala M’Bala v. France , Judgment, 20 October 2015, Application no. 25239/13, with a commentary by Caroli 2015.
- 108.
See ECtHR Lehideux and Isorni v. France, above n 80, paras 55, 51.
- 109.
ECtHR , Perinçek v. Switzerland , above n 92, para 51. On this point, refer to the partially dissenting opinions of the judges Vučinić and Pinto de Albuquerque, according to which: ‘the distinction between mere denial and trivialising or justifying is artificial in linguistic terms and can be easily circumvented by a sophisticated speaker, through euphemistic and elaborate speech’ (para 19). The differentiation between denial of a historical fact and denial of its legal qualification may not make sense to some, see Garibian 2016, p. 238.
- 110.
‘The case-law cited above (see paras 44–50) indicates that the threshold for determining whether statements may fall within the scope of Article 17 relates to whether their aim is to stir up hatred or violence. The Court considers that the rejection of the legal characterization of the events of 1915 was not in itself sufficient to amount to incitement of hatred towards the Armenian people. In any event, the applicant has never been prosecuted or punished for incitement to hatred, which is a separate offence under the first paragraph of Article 261 bis of the Criminal Code (see para 14 above). Nor does it appear that the applicant has expressed contempt towards the victims of the events in question’: ECtHR, Perinçek v. Switzerland, above n 92. On the Court’s use of the clause on abuse of rights (Article 17), see Lobba 2015, pp. 240–243.
- 111.
ECtHR , Perinçek v. Switzerland, above n 92, paras 58–72.
- 112.
Ibid., paras 73–75.
- 113.
Ibid., para 99.
- 114.
Ibid., para 111.
- 115.
Ibid., paras 99–100 of the Judgment.
- 116.
Ibid., para 112.
- 117.
Ibid., para 120.
- 118.
Ibid., para 124.
- 119.
Ibid., para 115.
- 120.
Ibid., para 116.
- 121.
Ibid., para 117.
- 122.
Ibid., para 118. For criticism of these statements, see Hervieu 2014, citing that the judgments of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg are not unanimously accepted as ‘historical facts’, just as the qualification of Armenian as genocide is not unanimously accepted. According to the article, such a difference in status between Nazi and Armenian genocides based on the existence of a judicial decision is entirely ‘artificial’. The article highlights the minority opinion of judges Vučinić and Pinto de Albuquerque who consider that the Armenian genocide has been widely recognised both by courts and internationally (see paras 2–10 of the Opinion).
- 123.
Ibid., para 119.
- 124.
Garibian 2016, p. 249.
- 125.
Perincek, Grand Chamber, para 243.
- 126.
Cortese 2016, p. 10.
- 127.
See ECtHR , Perinçek v. Switzerland , above n 92, partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judge Nussberger, p. 86.
- 128.
Ibid., p. 86.
- 129.
See ibid., paras 21 and 22.
- 130.
See Garibian 2016, p. 237.
- 131.
The trial is memory and orders time. ‘Toute la cérémonie judiciaire converge vers ce moment final, libérateur. Car si le temps de la poursuite est imprescriptible, celui du jugement est bel et bien définitif’, see Salas 2002, p. 24.
- 132.
The armoire of shame was a wooden cabinet discovered in 1994 inside a large storage room in Palazzo Cesi-Gaddi in Rome, which, at the time, housed the chancellery of the military attorney's office. The cabinet contained an archive of 695 files documenting war crimes perpetrated on Italian soil during the Nazi occupation. The discovery led to the opening of two Commissions of Inquiry. The Commision of Inquiry of the Italian Parliament delivered a majority and a minority report: Commissione parlamentare di Inchiesta sulle cause di occultamento dei crimini nazifascisti, Relazione Finale, XIV Legislatura, Doc. XXIII, n. 18, approved on 08.02.2006, available at http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/301476.pdf; Commissione parlamentare di Inchiesta sulle cause di occultamento dei crimini nazifascisti, Relazione di Minoranza, XIV Legislatura, Doc. XXIII, n. 18-bis, presented 24.01.2006, available at http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/203175.pdf. This also resulted in a new judicial phase. It has nonetheless to be noted that the new judicial phase related only to crimes committed by German perpetrators (on the basis of who was still alive at the time). As for the crimes committed by Italian Fascists, their criminal persecutions ended in the 1940s with the application of amnesty laws (among them the so-called Togliatti Amnesty). These amnesties have never been questioned, not even after the discovery of 1994. On this issue, see Stramaccioni 2016; Giustolisi 2004; Franzinelli 2002; Vassalli 1997, pp. 228 et seq.; Pezzino 2012; Pezzino 2018. For a legal analysis, see Caroli 2017, p. 95 et seq.; Fornasari 2015; Buzzelli et al. 2012; Fronza 2009; Vassalli 1997, p. 228 et seq.
- 133.
- 134.
- 135.
- 136.
The Ley de Justicia y Paz (Ley 975/2005) and the Sistema Integral para la Verdad, Justicia, Reparación y No Repetición as a result of the Agreement recently signed between the Colombian Government and the guerrilla group FARC-EP. The Agreement entails a complex, original and bold transitional project, which envisages a combination of criminal and extra-judicial mechanisms in order to assess the truth and reconstruct the truth. Within the framework of the Ley de Justicia y Paz, the Grupo Nacional de Memoria Histórica was established and is composed of independent experts given the task to construct a comprehensive and impartial narration of the Colombian armed conflict. This entity, which in 2011 was replaced by the Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica, is still active and has published numerous reports on armed conflict and specific victimization experiences, thereby contributing to the knowledge of this prolonged period of violence. The Sistema Integral provides for the creation of a Comisión para el exclarecimiento de la verdad, convivencia y la no repetición and is also composed of independent experts, expressly separated from the criminal courts. It is entrusted with the task of investigating the causes and the dynamics of armed conflict utilising social science methodologies. For a more in-depth analysis, see The search for peace with justice and human rights in Colombia, Report of the Fifth International Caravana of Jurists to Colombia, November 2016. See Gil Gil and Maculan 2017a; Gutiérrez Ramírez and Rodríguez 2016, pp. 40–60; Gil Gil and Maculan 2017b, p. 311 et seq.
- 137.
See Lollini 2011.
- 138.
Highlighting the divergence between historical and judicial approaches, see Ginzburg 1991, pp. 108–110.
- 139.
Ginzburg note that evidence (in the legal sense) is never sufficient protection from the forces that threaten to erode the memory of the Holocaust. See Ginzburg 1991.
- 140.
‘On the contrary, if historical knowledge is tangible it is no longer knowledge. Therefore, we should all fear the contemporary tendency of a forced reconstruction of the past through criminal judgment’, Donini 2009, p. 183.
- 141.
Ost 1999, p. 44.
- 142.
On the dangers and risks of entrusting courts with a decision on a matter of history and not of law, see Vidal-Naquet 1981, p. 183. On the differences and similarities between juridical method and historical method, see on the historical perspective: Ginzburg 1991, 2000; on the legal perspective: Calamandrei 1939, p. 105 et seq.; Calamandrei 1957, p. 120 et seq.; Capograssi 1959; Jean 2009; Stolleis 2000; critical on the overlapping of the figures of the judge and of the historian: Taruffo 1992, p. 310 et seq.; Taruffo 1967, p. 438 et seq.; Garapon 2002; Thomas 1998. Stressing the typical functions of criminal law, different from those of the historical research: Pastor 2010; Jean 2009; Costa 2006, pp. 158–181; Donini 2009. Beyond the differences, some common points exist between the figures of the historian and of the judge : see Ginzburg 2000, p. 66; Resta and Zencovich 2012, p. 93 et seq.; Ferrajoli 2009, p. 26; Ricoeur 2000, p. 413 et seq.; Rosoni 1995. See also Cajani 2017.
- 143.
Vidal-Naquet, Interview in Le Quotidien de Paris, 9 May 1998.
- 144.
‘Doubting the existence of the Holocaust should not be prohibited with a law because historical truth should never be transformed into official truth’: Ginzburg 2001, p. 1.
- 145.
Vidal-Naquet 1981, p. 183.
- 146.
Donini 2009, p. 186.
- 147.
Vidal Naquet highlights that the judicial instrument can be used and in this regard it refers to the rules on defamation and laws against racist activities; however, the article states that the condition must be to never ask the Tribunals to rule on a point concerning history, but only on law. Vidal Naquet 1981, p. 183.
- 148.
See Garapon 1995.
References
Ader B (2012) L’état de la jurisprudence sur la notion de négation depuis la loi Gayssot. Légipresse 293:236–248
Algan B (2008) The Brand New Version of Article 301 of Turkish Penal Code and the Future of Freedom of Expression Cases in Turkey. German Law Journal 9:2237–2252
Ambos K (2009) The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice: A Systematic Study with a Special Focus on the Role of the ICC. In: Ambos K et al. (eds) Building a Future on Peace and Justice: Studies on Transitional Justice, Peace and Development. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–86
Ambos K (2014) Treatise on International Criminal Law. Volume II: The Crimes and Sentencing. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Arslan A, Berti F, De Stefani P (eds) (2017) Il paese perduto. A cent’anni dal genocidio armeno. Edizioni Angelo Guerini, Milan
Baldissara L (2016) Politiche della memoria e spazio del ricordo in Europa. Il Mulino, Bologna, 1:6–20
Bartole S, De Sena P, Zagrebelsky V (2012) Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Giuffré, Milan
Baruch MO (2013) Des lois indignes? Les historiens, la politique et le droit. Tallandier, Paris
Belavusau U (2016) Introductory Note to Perinçek v. Switzerland (2015): Judgment of the Grand Chamber (ECtHR). International Legal Materials 55:627–629
Brunet F (2012) De la censure constitutionnelle de la loi “visant à réprimer la contestation de l’existence des génocides reconnus par la loi”. Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé 2:343–354
Buyse A (2014) Dangerous Expressions: The ECHR, Violence and Free Speech. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 63:491–503
Buzzelli S, De Paolis M, Speranzoni A (2012) La ricostruzione giudiziale dei crimini nazifascisti in Italia. Questioni preliminari. Giappichelli, Turin
Cajani L (2017) La storia nel mirino del diritto penale. Diritto pubblico Comparato ed Europeo Online, no. 1, 25
Calamandrei P (1939) Il giudice e lo storico. Rivista di diritto processuale civile XVII:105–128
Calamandrei P (1957) Verità e verosimiglianza nel processo civile. In: Studi sul processo civile IV. Cedam, Padua, pp 115–132
Camby JP (2012) La loi et le négationnisme: de l’exploitation de l’histoire au droit au débat sur l’histoire. Les Petites Affiches 70:11–22
Capograssi G (1959) Giudizio, processo, scienza, verità. In: Capograssi G, Opere, vol. V. Giuffrè, Milan, pp 51–76
Caroli P (2015) La Corte europea in tema di offese pubbliche contro gli ebrei. Diritto penale contemporaneo online http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/d/4368-la-corte-europea-in-tema-di-offese-pubbliche-contro-gli-ebrei. Accessed 16 July 2017
Caroli P (2017) La giustizia di transizione in Italia. L’esperienza dopo la seconda guerra mondiale. http://eprints-phd.biblio.unitn.it/1981/1/Paolo_Caroli_-_Tesi_dottorato_.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2017
Cassese A (2002) Genocide. In: Cassese A, Gaeta P, Jones JRWD (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 335–351
Cohen-Jonathan G (1999) L’apologie de Pétain devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Revue universelle des droits de l’homme 38:366–386
Corboz B (2002) Les infractions en droit suisse. Volume II. Staempfli, Bern
Cortese F (2016) What can the Perinçek case teach? DPCE online http://www.dpceonline.it/index.php/dpceonline/article/view/93. Accessed 16 July 2017
Costa P (2006) In Search of Legal Texts: Which Texts for Which Historian? In: Michalsen D (ed) Reading Past Legal Texts. Unipax, Oslo, pp 158–181
Costa-Lascoux J (1976) La Loi du 1. juillet 1972 et la protection pénale des immigrés contre la discrimination raciale. Droit social 5:181–187
Couvrat P (1993) Les infractions contre les personnes dans le nouveau Code Pénal. Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Comparé 3:469–480
Danti-Juan M (2012) Contestation de l’existence d’un génocide. Revue pénitentiaire et de droit pénal 2:399–402
Decoeur H (2014) The Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Perinçek v. Switzerland: Reducing Genocide to Law. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law
Della Morte G (2016) When is a criminal prohibition of genocide denial justified? The Perinçek Case and the risk of a double standard. Questions of International Law, online: http://www.qil-qdi.org/criminal-prohibition-genocide-denial-justified-perincek-case-risk-double-standard/. Accessed 15 September 2017
Delmas-Marty M, Fouchard I, Fronza E, Neyret L (2013) Le crime contre l’humanité. PUF, Paris
Derieux E (2012) Sanction de la contestation de génocides et garantie de la liberté d’expression. Revue Lamy Droit de l’Immatériel 80:6–8
Donini M (2009) La gestione penale del passaggio dal Fascismo alla democrazia in Italia. Appunti sulla memoria storica e l’elaborazione del passato ‘mediante il diritto penale’. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica 1:183–216
Droin N (2010) Les limitations à la liberté d’expression dans la loi sur la presse du 29 juillet 1881 - Disparition, permanence et résurgence du délit d’opinion. Fondation Varenne, Collection de Thèses no. 35, Paris
Droin N (2014) État des lieux de la répression du négationnisme en France et en droit comparé. Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 98:363–394
Dubuisson F (2007) L’incrimination générique du négationnisme est-elle conciliable avec le droit à la liberté d’expression. Revue de Droit Université Libre de Bruxelles 35:135–195
Feldman JP (1998) Peut-on dire impunément n’importe quoi sur la Shoah? Revue de droit international et de droit comparé 229–271
Ferrajoli L (1989) Diritto e ragione. Teoria del garantismo penale. Laterza, Bari
Ferrajoli L (2009) Diritto e ragione. Teoria del garantismo penale. Laterza, Bari
Fornasari G (2015) Giustizia di transizione. Enciclopedia del Diritto. Annali VIII:547–570
Fraisseix P (2006) Le droit mémoriel. Revue française de droit constitutionnel 3
Francillon J (2010) Questions prioritaires de constitutionnalité en matière d’infractions de presse (délits d’apologie de crimes de guerre, de contestation de l’existence de crimes l’humanité, et de diffamation), observations à propos de Crim. 2 et 19 mars 2010, n° 09-81.238 09-81.027, et 7 mai 2010, n° 09-80.774. Revue Sciences criminelles et Droit Comparé 3:640–654
Francillon J (2012) Pénalisation de la contestation de l’existence d’un génocide reconnu par la loi. Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé 1:179–182
Francillon J (2013a) Apologie de crimes contre l’humanité. Absence de portée normative de la “Loi Taubira” du 21 mai 2001 (Crim. 5 février 2013 no. 11-85.909). Revue de sciences criminelles et de droit comparé 1
Francillon J (2013b) Pénalisation des discours négationnistes et liberté d’expression. Mélanges offerts à Claude Bontems. L’Harmattan, Paris
Frangi M (2005) Les lois mémorielles: de l’expression de la volonté générale au législateur historien. Revue de droit public 1:241–253
Franzinelli M (2002) Le stragi nascoste, cit.; L’armadio della vergogna: impunità e rimozione dei crimini di guerra nazifascisti 1943–2001. Mondadori, Milan
Freeman M (2006) Truth Commission and Procedural fairness. Cambridge University Press, New York
Fronza E (2009) Italia. In: Ambos K, Malarino E, Elsner G (ed.) Justicia de transicion. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Montevideo
Fronza E (2016) Il crimine di genocidio. In: Amati E, Costi M, Fronza E, Lobba P, Maculan E, Vallini A (eds) Introduzione al diritto penale internazionale. Giappichel, Turin, pp. 323–350
Fronza E, Cortese F (2017) Il caso Perinçek davanti alla Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Quando il giudice fa la storia. In: Arslan A, Berti F, De Stefani P (eds) Il paese perduto. A cent’anni dal genocidio armeno. Edizioni Angelo Guerini, Milan
Garapon A (1995) Bien juger: essai sur le rituel judiciaire. Odile Jacob, Paris
Garapon A (2002) Des crimes qu’on ne peut ni punir ni pardonner: pour une justice internationale. Odile Jacob, Paris
Garibian S (2006) Pour une lecture juridique des quatre lois “mémorielles”. Esprit 322:1–18
Garibian S (2008) Taking Denial Seriously: Genocide Denial and Freedom of Speech in the French Law. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 9:479–488
Garibian S (2013) (Legally) binding memory? Uncertainties arising from decision no. 2012-647 DC of France’s Constitutional Council’. Droit et Cultures 66:25–56
Garibian S (2014) Ghosts Also Die: Resisting Disappearance through the ‘Right to the Truth’ and the Juicios por la Verdad in Argentina. Journal of International Criminal Justice 12:515–538
Garibian S (2016) On the Breaking of Consensus: The Perinçek case, the Armenian Genocide and International Criminal Law
Gil Gil A, Maculan E (eds) (2017a) Colombia como nuevo modelo para la justicia de transición. Instituto Universitario General Gutiérrez Mellado, Madrid
Gil Gil A, Maculan E (2017b) La influencia de las victimas en el tratamiento juridico de la violencia colectiva. Librería Dykinson, Madrid
Ginzburg C (1991) Il giudice e lo storico. Considerazioni a margine del processo Sofri. Feltrinelli, Milan
Ginzburg C (2000) Rapporti di forza: storia, retorica, prova. Feltrinelli, Milan
Ginzburg C (2001) Beweis, Gedächtnis, Vergessen. Werkstatt Geschichte 30:50–60
Giustolisi F (2004) L’armadio della vergogna. Nutrimenti, Rome
Grandjean G (2011) La répression du négationnisme en Belgique: de la réussite législative au blocage politique. Droit et Société 1:137–160
Gunter MM (2011) Armenian History and the Question of Genocide. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Gutiérrez Ramírez LM, Rodríguez JR (2016) Una comisión de la verdad en el modelo colombiano de justicia transicional: aproximación a través de la historia reciente y la experiencia comparada. Jurídicas 10:40–60
Guyaz A (1996) L’incrimination de la discrimination raciale. Verlag, Bern
Hamon F (2012) Le Conseil constitutionnel et les lois mémorielles. Revue française de droit administratif 2:7–11
Hartog F, Baruch MO, Thomas Y, Gaudard PY (1998) Vérité judiciaire, vérité historique. Le Débat 102:4–44
Hervieu N (2014) Le négationnisme, prisme révélateur du dilemme européen face à lutte contre l’extrémisme. Revue des droits de l’homme online https://revdh.revues.org/503. Accessed 16 July 2017
Hochmann T (2011) Faurisson, “falsificateur de la jurisprudence”? Droit et Cultures 61:235–256
Hochmann T (2012) Le négationnisme face aux limites de la liberté d’expression. Étude de droit comparé. Pedone, Paris
Hochmann T (2013) Le problème des lois dites “mémorielles” sera-t-il résolu par les résolutions? La référence à l’article 34-1 de la Constitution dans le discours contemporain sur les relations entre le Parlement et l’histoire. Droit et cultures 66:57–69
Hochmann T (2016) Négationnisme: le Conseil Constitutionnel entre ange et démon. Revue des droits et libertés fondamentaux online http://www.revuedlf.com/droit-constitutionnel/negationnisme-le-conseil-constitutionnel-entre-ange-et-demon/. Accessed 16 July 2017
Hochmann T (2017) Pas de lunettes sous les oeillères: le conseil constitutionnel et le négationnisme. Revue des droits et libertés fondamentaux online http://www.revuedlf.com/droit-constitutionnel/pas-de-lunettes-sous-les-oeilleres-le-conseil-constitutionnel-et-le-negationnisme/. Accessed 16 July 2017
Jean JP (2009) Le procès et l’écriture de l’histoire. Revue de sciences humaines 9:61–74
Jouanneau B (2008) La Justice et l’Histoire face au négationnisme. Au coeur d’un procès. Fayard, Paris
Keane D (2007) Attacking Hate Speech under Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 25:641–663
Koposov N (2017) Memory Laws, Memory Wars. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Korman C (1989) Le délit de diffusion des idées racistes. La Semaine Juridique 50
Lapage A (2013) Le Conseil Constitutionnel ne connaitra toujours pas du délit de contestation de crimes contre l’humanité. Communication Commerce Électronique 2
Le Crom JP, Jean-Clément M (1998) (ed.) Dossier vérité historique, vérité judiciaire. Droit et Société 38:9–67
Leotta CD (2015) Profili penali del negazionismo. Riflessioni alla luce della sentenza della Corte EDU sul genocidio armeno. Cedam, Padua
Levade A, Mathieu B (2012) Le législateur ne peut fixer des vérités et en sanctionner la contestation. La Semaine juridique. Édition générale 14:680–684
Levinet M (2004) La fermeté bienvenue de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme face au négationnisme, obs. à la décision du 24 juin 2003, Garaudy c/ France. Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 653–662
Lobba P (2014) A European Halt to Laws Against Genocide Denial? European Criminal Law Review 4:59–77
Lobba P (2015) Holocaust Denial before the European Court of Human Rights: Evolution of an Exceptional Regime. European Journal of International Law 26:237–253
Lollini A (2011) Constitutionalism and Transitional Justice in South Africa. Berghahn Books, Oxford
Longo S, Ubiali MC (2016) Articolo 10. In: Ubertis G, Viganò F (eds) Corte di Strasburgo e giustizia penale. Giappichelli, Turin
Luban D (2004) A Theory of Crimes Against Humanity. Yale Journal of International Law 29:85–167
Maculan E, Pastor D (2013) El derecho a la verdad y su esercicio por medio del proceso penal. Hammurabi, Buenos Aires
Maguire (2001) Law and War: An American Story. Columbia University Press, New York
Mallet-Poujol N (2012) La loi de pénalisation du negationnisme: la censure constitutionelle ou le crépuscule des lois mémorielles. Légipresse 293:219–232
Massias F (1993) La liberté d’expression et le discours raciste ou révisionniste. Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 183–213
Maus D, Bougrab J (2005) Les questions de constitutionnalités posées par la loi du 29 janvier 2001. In: Maus D, Bougrab J (eds) François Luchaire, un républicain au service de la République. Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris
May L (2010) Genocide. A Normative Account. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Michel J (2010) Gouverner les mémoires – Les politiques mémorielles en France. PUF, Paris
Montanari M (2013) Il disegno di legge in materia di negazionismo passa all’esame dell’aula del Senato. Diritto penale contemporaneo. Online: https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it/d/2597-il-disegno-di-legge-in-materia-di-negazionismo-passa-all-esame-dell-aula-del-senato. Accessed 28 September 2017
Morange J (2009) La liberté d’expression. Bruylant, Brussels
Mouysset O (2012) Pas de nouveau délit de contestation (ou de minimisation) de l’existence de crimes contre l’humanité: suite et fin? Droit pénal 6:26–27
Niggli MA, Wiprächtiger H (ed) (2013) Strafrecht II. Article 111-392 StGB. Basler Kommentar. Helbing, Basel
Nora P (2016) Come si manipola la memoria. Lo storico, il potere, il passato. Editrice La Scuola, Brescia
Nora P, Chandernagor F (2008) Liberté pour l’histoire. CNRS éditions, Paris
O’Keefe R (2015) International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ost F (1999) Le temps du droit. Odile Jacob, Paris
Pastor D (2010) ¿Procesos penales sólo para conocer la verdad? La experiencia argentina. Revista General de Derecho Procesal 22, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3305216. Accessed 17 November 2017
Pech L (2011) The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe. In: Hennebel L, Hochmann T (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Puig P (2012) La loi peut-elle sanctuariser l’Histoire? Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 1:78–84
Rémond R (2006) Quand l’État se mêle de l’histoire. Stock, Paris
Resta G, Zeno-Zencovich V (2012) (eds) Riparare, risarcire, ricordare. Un dialogo tra storici e giuristi. Editoriale Scientifica, Naples
Ricoeur P (2000) La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli. Seuil, Paris
Roets D (2004) Epilogue européen dans l’affaire Garaudy: les droits de l’homme à l’epreuve du negationnisme. Recueil Dalloz 239–254
Rosoni I (1995) Quae singula non prosunt collecta iuvant: la teoria della prova indiziaria nell’età medievale e moderna. Giuffrè, Milan
Roumelian O (1996) Un délit d’opinion au service des droits de l’homme? Petites affiches 21
Roux J (2012) Le Conseil constitutionnel et le génocide arménien: De l’a-normativité à l’inconstitutionnalité de la loi. Recueil Dalloz, 12 April 2012, no. 15, pp 987–993
Safi F (2017) A la recerche d’un fondement à l’incrimination du négationnisme. Recueil Dalloz 686–703
Salas D (2002) La justice entre histoire et mémoire. In: Jean JP, Salas D (eds) Barbie, Touvier, Papon. Des procès pour la mémoire. Autrement, Paris, pp 20–33
Schabas WA (2009) Genocide in International Law. The Crime of Crimes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schabas WA (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights. A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schabas WA (2016) Article 6. Genocide. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Observer’s Notes, Article by Article. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich/Oxford, pp 143–157
Stahn C (2005) The Geometry of Transitional Justice: Choices of Institutional Design. Leiden Journal of International Law 3:425–466
Stolleis M (2000) Der Historiker als Richter - der Richter als Historiker’. In: Frei N, Van Laak D, Stolleis M (eds) Geschichte vor Gericht. Historiker, Richter und die Suche nach Gerechtigkeit. Beck, Munich, pp 173–179
Stramaccioni A (2016) Crimini di guerra: Storia e memoria del caso italiano. Laterza, Bari
Taruffo M (1967) Il giudice e lo storico: considerazioni metodologiche. Rivista di diritto processuale XXII:438–465
Taruffo M (1992) La prova dei fatti giuridici. Giuffré, Milan
Ternon Y (1999) Freedom and Responsibility of the Historian. The “Lewis Affair”. In: Hovannisian RG (ed) Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, pp 237–248
Terry N (2017) Holocaust denial in the age of web 2.0. In: Behrens P, Jensen O, Terry N (eds) Holocaust and Genocide Denial: A Contextual Perspective. Routledge, London
Thomas Y (1998) “La vérité, le temps, le juge et l’historien”. Le débat 102:17–36
Tracol X (1997) L’affaire Faurisson devant le Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations-Unies. Légipresse 141
Traverso E (2006) Il passato: istruzioni per l’uso. Storia, memoria, politica. Ombre Corte, Verona
Trechsel S, Pieth M (eds) (2012) Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch. Praxiskommentar. Dike, Zurich
Troper M (1999) La Loi Gayssot et la Constitution. Annales Histoire. Science sociales 6:1239–1256
van Drooghenbroeck S (2001) L’article 17 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme est-il indispensable? Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme 46:552–553
Vassalli G (1997), Formula di Radbruch e diritto penale. Note sulla punizione dei “delitti di Stato” nella Germania postnazista e nella Germania postcomunista. Giuffrè, Milan
Véron M (1990) Le renforcement du dispositif répressif contre la discrimination et le racisme. Présentation des lois des 12 et 13 juillet 1990. Droit Pénal chron. 1
Verpeaux M (2007) Liberté d’expression et discours politique. Table ronde: Constitution et liberté d’expression
Vidal-Naquet P (1981) Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust. Columbia University Press, New York
Weber M (1998) Switzerland’s Anti-Racism Law. Online http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p13_weber.html. Accessed 16 July 2017
Werle G, Jessberger F (2014) Principles of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fronza, E. (2018). Criminal Law and Memory. In: Memory and Punishment. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 19. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-234-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-234-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-233-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-234-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)