<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>JusticeInfo.net</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.justiceinfo.net/en</provider_url><title>17.10.08 - ICTR/JURISPRUDENCE - JUDGES OF AD HOC TRIBUNALS CAN ACCUMULATE THE CRIMES ON AN ACT</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="gIztLoZVJO"&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/20651-en-en-171008-ictrjurisprudence-judges-of-ad-hoc-tribunals-can-accumulate-the-crimes-on-an-act1145811458.html"&gt;17.10.08 - ICTR/JURISPRUDENCE - JUDGES OF AD HOC TRIBUNALS CAN ACCUMULATE THE CRIMES ON AN ACT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/20651-en-en-171008-ictrjurisprudence-judges-of-ad-hoc-tribunals-can-accumulate-the-crimes-on-an-act1145811458.html/embed#?secret=gIztLoZVJO" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;17.10.08 - ICTR/JURISPRUDENCE - JUDGES OF AD HOC TRIBUNALS CAN ACCUMULATE THE CRIMES ON AN ACT&#x201D; &#x2014; JusticeInfo.net" data-secret="gIztLoZVJO" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>The Hague October 2008 (FH) - The judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), as those of the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), sometimes convict defendants for several crimes for the same act when the necessary elements of evidence for these crimes are distinct. These multiple convictions constitute an exception to the basic principle of [&hellip;]</description><thumbnail_url>https://www.justiceinfo.net/wp-content/uploads/JusticeInfoNet_logo_1200x630px.jpg</thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width>1200</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height>630</thumbnail_height></oembed>
