1 See, e.g., Ambos, Kai, Zur Bestrafung von Verbrechen im internationalen., nicht-internationalen und internen Konflikt, in Humanitäres Völkerrecht: Politische, Rechtliche und Strafgerichtliche Dimensionen 325 (Jana Hasse, Erwin Müller and Patricia Schneider eds., 2001); Bassiouni, M. Cherif, Accountability for Violations of International Humanitarian Law and Other Serious Violations of Human Rights, 2001 The Global Community (Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence) 3 (2001); Elies van Sliedregt, The Criminal Responsibility of Individuals for Violations of International Humanitarian Law (2003).Google Scholar

2 It is generally understood that under international law reparation can take the form of restitution, compensation or satisfaction, either singly or in combination. In regard to inter-state relations, see Article 34 of the ILC Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 53^rd Session, GAOR, 56^th Session, Supp. No. 10 (A/56/10).Google Scholar

3 Among the vast literature, see, e.g., Rudolf Dolzer, The Settlement of War-Related Claims: Does International Law Recognize a Victim's Private Right of Action? Lessons After 1945, 20 Berkeley Journal of International Law 297 (2002); Emanuela-Chiara Gillard, Reparation for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 85 International Review of the Red Cross 529 (2003); Bernhard Graefrath, Schadensersatzansprüche wegen Verletzung humanitären Völkerrechts, Humanitäres Völkerrecht -Informationsschriften 110 (2001); Wolfgang Heintschel von Heinegg, Entschädigung für Verletzungen des humanitären Völkerrechts, 40 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 1 (2003);Google Scholar

Burkhard Heß, Kriegsentschädigungen aus kollisionsrechtlicher und rechtsvergleichender Sicht, 40 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 107 (2003); Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, Reparation Claims by Individuals for State Breaches of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights: An Overview, 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice 339 (2003); Ana Salado-Osuna, The Victims of Human Rights Violations in Armed Conflicts: The Right to Justice, Truth and Compensation, in The New Challenges of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts - In Honour of Professor Juan Antonio Carrillo-Salcedo 315 (Pablo Antonio Fernández-Sánchez ed., 2005); Elke Schwager, The Right to Compensation for Victims of an Armed Conflict, 4 Chinese Journal of International Law 417 (2005); Christian Tomuschat, Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations, 10 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 157 (2002); Liesbeth Zegveld, Remedies for Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 85 International Review of the Red Cross 497 (2003). See, also, the contributions in State Responsibility and the Individual: Reparation in Instances of Grave Violations of Human Rights (Albrecht Randelzhofer and Christian Tomuschat eds., 1999).Google Scholar

4 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

5 Id. at para. 2.Google Scholar

6 Id. at para. 3.Google Scholar

7 Landgericht (LG - Regional Court) Bonn, 1 O 358/95 (June 23, 1997).Google Scholar

8 Oberlandesgericht (OLG - Higher Regional Court) Köln, 7 U 167/97 (August 27, 1998).Google Scholar

9 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH - Federal Court of Justice), 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3488 (2003). See Sabine Pittrof, Compensation Claims for Human Rights Breaches Committed by German Armed Forces Abroad During the Second World War: Federal Constitutional Court Hands Down Decision in the Distomo Case, 5 German Law Journal 15 (2004), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol05No01/PDF_Vol_05_No_01_15-21_Public_Pittrof.pdf.Google Scholar

10 Court of First Instance of Livadeia, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 137/1997 (October 30, 1997). English translation (excerpts) reproduced in: 50 Revue hellénique de droit international 595 (1997) (with note by Maria Gavouneli). For an analysis of the decision, see Ilias Bantekas, Case Report: Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, 92 American Journal of International Law 765 (1998).Google Scholar

11 Hellenic Supreme Court (Areios Pagos), Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Case No. 111/2000, 4 May 2000; for a comment see Maria Gavouneli/Ilias Bantekas, Case Report: Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, 95 American Journal of International Law 198 (2001).Google Scholar

12 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH - Federal Court of Justice), 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3488-3489 (2003).Google Scholar

13 Article 14 of the Basic Law states: “(1) Property and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed. Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws. (2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good. (3) Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good. It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation. Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. In case of dispute respecting the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.”Google Scholar

14 Reichsgesetzblatt (RGBl.) 1910, 107. For the wording of Article 3 of Hague Convention IV see infra at C.II.2.a.Google Scholar

15 Article 3 para. 1 of the Basic Law states: “All persons shall be equal before the law.”Google Scholar

16 Article 100 para. 2 of the Basic Law states: “If, in the course of litigation, doubt exists whether a rule of international law is an integral part of federal law and whether it directly creates rights and duties for the individual (Article 25), the court shall obtain a decision from the Federal Constitutional Court.”Google Scholar

17 Article 101 para. 1 of the Basic Law states: “Extraordinary courts shall not be allowed. No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judge.”Google Scholar

18 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 13-16 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

19 Id. at para. 18.Google Scholar

20 Council Regulation 44/2001, Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 2001 O.J. (L 12) 1 (EC).Google Scholar

21 See, e.g., Reinhold Geimer, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht margin number 2774 (5th ed. 2005).Google Scholar

22 There is, however, some discussion on the question of whether Article 6 para. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) grants an individual right to recognition of foreign judgments. See, e.g., Franz Matscher, Die Einwirkungen der EMRK auf das Internationale Privat- und zivilprozessuale Verfahrensrecht, in Europa im Aufbruch - Festschrift Fritz Schwind zum 80. Geburtstag 71, 82-83 (Franz Matscher and Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern eds., 1993). See also Reinhold Geimer, in Zivilprozessordnung, § 328 margin number 2 (Richard Zöller ed., 25th ed. 2005).Google Scholar

23 For a recent comprehensive analysis of the concept of state responsibility under international law, see Ernest K. Bankas, The State Immunity Controversy in International Law - Private Suits Against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts (2005). Among the bulk of publications, see also Andrea Bianchi, Denying State Immunity to Violators of Human Rights, 46 Austrian Journal of Public and International Law 195 (1994); Jürgen Bröhmer, State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights (1997); Wolfgang Cremer, Entschädigungsklagen wegen schwerer Menschenrechtsverletzungen und Staatenimmunität vor nationaler Zivilgerichtsbarkeit, 41 Archiv des Völkerrechts 137 (2003); Oliver Dörr, Staatliche Immunität auf dem Rückzug?, 41 Archiv des Völkerrechts 201 (2003); Burkhard Heß, Staatenimmunität bei Menschenrechtsverletzungen, in Wege zur Globalisierung des Rechts - Festschrift für Rolf A. Schütze zum 65. Geburtstag 269 (Reinhold Geimer ed., 1999); Maria Gavouneli, State Immunity and the Rule of Law (2001).Google Scholar

24 Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 79. See Markus Rau, After Pinochet: Foreign Sovereign Immunity in Respect of Serious Human Rights Violations - The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Al-Adsani Case, 3 German Law Journal No. 6 (2002), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=160. See also Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz, Staatenimmunität, ius cogens und das Recht auf Zugang zu einem Gericht, in Völkerrechtsprechung - Ausgewählte Entscheidungen zum Völkerrecht in Retrospektive 434 (Jörg Menzel, Tobias Pierlings and Jeannine Hoffmann eds., 2005); Christian Maierhöfer, Der EGMR als “Modernisierer” des Völkerrechts? - Staatenimmunität und ius cogens auf dem Prüfstand, 29 Europäische GrundrechteZeitschrift 391 (2002); Christian Tams, Schwierigkeiten mit dem Ius Cogens. Anmerkungen zum Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte im Fall Al-Adsani gegen Vereinigtes Königreich vom 21. November 2001, 40 Archiv des Völkerrechts 331 (2002).Google Scholar

25 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 19 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html. See, e.g., BVerfGE, 42, 263 (293).Google Scholar

26 Supra note 14.Google Scholar

27 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3257, 3258 (2004).Google Scholar

28 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 58 Neue Zeitschrift für verwaltungsrecht 560, 564 (2005).Google Scholar

29 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, paras. 20-22 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

30 Oberlandesgericht (OLG - Higher Regional Court) Köln, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2860, 2861 (2005).Google Scholar

31 See, e.g., Pierre d'Argent, Les reparations de guerre en droit international public. La responsabilite des États a l'epreuve de la guerre, 784-788 (2002); Dolzer, supra note 3, at 308; Heintschel von Heinegg, supra note 3, at 31-32; Tomuschat, supra note 3, at 178-179.Google Scholar

32 See, e.g., Tokyo High Court, X et al. v. The State of Japan, judgment of 7 August 1996. English translation reproduced in 40 Japanese Annual of International Law 116 (1997); Tokyo High Court, X et al. v. The State, judgment of 6 December 2000. English translation reproduced in 44 Japanese Annual of International Law 173 (2000); Tokyo High Court, X et al. v. The Government of Japan, judgment of 8 February 2001. English translation reproduced in 45 Japanese Annual of International Law 142 (2002); Tokyo District Court, X et al. v. State of Japan, judgment of 17 June 1999. English translation reproduced in 43 Japanese Annual of International Law 192 (2000). See also Shin Hae Bong, Compensation for Victims of Wartime Atrocities. Recent Developments in Japan's Case Law, 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 187 (2005).Google Scholar

33 See, e.g., Handel v. Artukovic, 601 F. Supp. 1421, at 1425 (C.D.Cal. 1985); Goldstar (Panama) S.A. v. United States, 967 F.2d 965, at 968-969 (4^th Cir. 1992); Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166, at 1175 (D.C.Cir. 1994).Google Scholar

34 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 21 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

35 Kalshoven, Frits, State Responsibility for Warlike Acts of the Armed Forces. From Article 3 of Hague Convention IV to Article 91 of Additional Protocol I and Beyond, 40 International and Comparative Law Quaterly 827 (1991). See also Schwager, supra note 3, at 422-427; Zegveld, supra note 3, at 506-507.Google Scholar

36 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General. Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004, UN doc. S/2005/60 of 11 February 2005, at § 594.Google Scholar

37 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 20 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

38 Id. at para. 21.Google Scholar

39 Id. at para. 22.Google Scholar

40 For an overview of the German law on state liability in English, see Wolfgang Rüfner, Basic Elements of German Law on State Liability, in Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study 249 (John Bell and Anthony W. Bradley eds., 1991). The leading German manual on the subject is Fritz Ossenbühl, Staatshaftungsrecht (5^th ed. 1998).Google Scholar

41 This is referred to as Beamtenhaftung in German.Google Scholar

42 See Burkhard HEß, Intertemporales Privatrecht (1998).Google Scholar

43 Reichsgesetzblatt (RGBl.) 1910, 798.Google Scholar

44 Sections 74 and 75 of the Introduction to the Prussian General Land Law state:Google Scholar

Ҥ 74 The furthering of the common good takes precedence over individual rights and privileges of the members of the state if a genuine conflict (collision) exists between these two provisions.Google Scholar

§ 75 The state is, however, bound to compensate anybody who is forced to sacrifice his particular rights and privileges for the common good.”Google Scholar

The original German text of the norms is reproduced in Ossenbühl, supra note 40, at 126.Google Scholar

45 For the text of Article 14 para. 3 of the Basic Law, see supra note 13.Google Scholar

46 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, paras. 23-27 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

47 See Auslandsverwendungsgesetz (Law on Service Regulations for Employments Abroad), July 28, 1993, BGBl. I at 1394, art. 6.Google Scholar

48 See Announcement, May 31, 1957, BGBl. I at 607.Google Scholar

49 See, in particular, Jochen A. Frowein, Staatshaftung gegenüber Ausländern, 19 Juristenzeitung 409, 410-411 (1964). See also Ossenbühl, supra note 40, at 99-100.Google Scholar

50 See, e.g., Hauschka, Christoph E., Der Ausschluß der Staatshaftung nach § 839 BGB gegenüber Staatsangehörigen aus Ländern der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 9 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 1155 (1990). See also Ossenbühl, supra note 40, at 100.Google Scholar

51 See, e.g., Gramlich, Ludwig, Ausgerechnet ein Italiener! oder: Staatshaftungsausschluß gegenüber Ausländern versus Völkervertragsrecht?, 5 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 448 (1986). On the whole subject, see also Harald Mueller, Das Internationale Amtshaftungsrecht 183-188 (1991); Stefan Kaiser, Die Staatshaftung gegenüber Ausländern. Zur Zulässigkeit normativer Haftungsausschlüsse gegenüber Ausländern im Recht der staatlichen Ersatzleistungen (1996).Google Scholar

52 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 89 (1983). See also BVerfGE 61, 149 (199).Google Scholar

53 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 26 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

54 Id. at 25.Google Scholar

55 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH - Federal Court of Justice), 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3488, 3491-3493 (2003).Google Scholar

56 Oberlandesgericht (OLG - Higher Regional Court) Köln, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2860, 2862-2863 (2005).Google Scholar

57 Id. at 2863.Google Scholar

58 See supra note 28.Google Scholar

59 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 24 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

60 See Ossenbühl, supra note 40, at 126-127.Google Scholar

61 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 28 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

62 In fact, recourse to the historical argument usually is not the method of first resort for the Federal Constitutional Court. For the methods of analysis referred to by the Federal Constitutional Court, see, e.g., Albert Bleckmann, Zu den Methoden der Gesetzesauslegung in der Rechtsprechung des BVerfG, 42 Juristische Schulung 942 (2002), Horst Sendler, Die Methoden der Verfassungsinterpretation -Rationalisierung der Entscheidungsfindung oder Camouflage der Dezision?, in Staatsphilosophie und Rechtspolitik - Festschrift für Martin Kriele zum 65. Geburtstag 457 (Burkhardt Ziemske, et al. eds., 1997).Google Scholar

63 See Ossenbühl, supra note 40, at 127. See also Albrecht Randelzhofer/Oliver Dörr, Entschädigung für Zwangsarbeit? Zum Problem individueller Entschädigungsansprüche von ausländischen Zwangsarbeitern während des Zweiten Weltkrieges gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 48 (1994).Google Scholar

64 Bundesentschädigungsgesetz (Federal Law for the Compensation of the Victims of National Socialist Persecution), June 29, 1956, BGBl. I at 559.Google Scholar

65 Gesetz zur Errichtung einer Stiftung “Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft” (Federal Law on the Establishment of a Foundation “Responsibility, Remembrance and Future”), August 2, 2000, BGBl. I at 1263. See Roland Bank, The New Programs for the Payment to Victims of National Socialist Injustice, 44 German Yearbook of International Law 307 (2002); Roland Bank, Die Leistungen an NS-Zwangsarbeiter durch die Stiftung “Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft”, in Die Rechtsstellung des Menschen im Völkerrecht 83 (Thilo Marauhn ed., 2003); Hugo J. Hahn, Individualansprüche auf Wiedergutmachung von Zwangsarbeit im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Das Entschädigungsgesetz vom 2.8.2000, 53 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3521 (2000).Google Scholar

66 Ossenbühl, , supra note 40, at 127.Google Scholar

67 This holds particularly true for the argumentum e contrario from the existence of special legislation for the settlement of National Socialist injustice. On the validity of such argument in legal discourse, see, generally, Maximilian Herberger/Dieter Simon, Wissenschaftstheorie für Juristen 60-64 (1980).Google Scholar

68 In this context, it is worth mentioning once more that unlike the concept of “sacrifice”, the rules on governmental liability presuppose culpable conduct, thus giving the courts more flexibility. This could make it easier to accept their applicability to activities of the German troops during an armed conflict.Google Scholar

69 According to the standard of non-arbitrariness, the equal treatment clause in Article 3 para. 1 of the Basic Law is violated by a Court decision only if the latter is in no way legally justifiable, thus appearing to be influenced by irrelevant considerations. See, e.g., BVerfGE 4, 1 (7); BVerfGE 74, 102 (127); BVerfGE 80, 48 (51).Google Scholar

70 This argument was already made by the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision concerning claims of Italian military detainees. See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3257, 3258 (2004).Google Scholar

71 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 30 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html.Google Scholar

72 See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 58 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 560, 564 (2005).Google Scholar

73 Id. at 565.Google Scholar

74 For the concept of jus cogens in international law see Alexander Orakhelashvili, Peremptory norms in International Law (2006). See also Lauri Hannikainen, Peremptory Norms (jus cogens) in International Law. Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status (1988); Stefan Kadelbach, Zwingendes Völkerrecht (1992).Google Scholar

75 Gattini, Andrea, A Return Ticket to “Communitarisme”, Please, 13 European Journal of International Law 1181, 1185 (2002).Google Scholar

76 Id. at 1188.Google Scholar

77 See Schweisfurth, Theodor, Die verfassungsgerichtlich eingetrübte Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit des Grundgesetzes, 24 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1261, 1264-1265 (2005).Google Scholar

78 See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 58 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 560, 563 (2005).Google Scholar

79 As the Federal Constitutional Court stated in its judgment of 26 October 2004, Article 41 of the ILC Articles is concerned with duties of third states. Id. at 565. By contrast, the obligations of the responsible state are addressed in Articles 28-39 of the ILC Articles.Google Scholar

80 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 1476/03, para. 31 (February 15, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060215_2bvr147603.html. The existence of such objective doubts is a required element of the referral process provided by Article 100 para. 2 of the Basic Law. See, e.g., Matthias Hartwig, Art. 100, in Grundgesetz. Mitarbeiterkommentar und Handbuch margin number 183 (Dieter C. Umbach and Thomas Clemens eds., 2002).Google Scholar

81 See the references supra note 3.Google Scholar

82 Human Rights Resolution 2005/35 of 19 April 2005, § 11, available at: http://www.iccnow.org/documents/OHCHR_Res35_VictimsReparations_19Apr05.pdf?PHPSESSID=0986e969849b7dad2500a2296b6c3229.Google Scholar

83 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, supra note 36, at § 597.Google Scholar

84 See, in particular, Christian Tomuschat, Ein umfassendes Wiedergutmachungsprogramm für Opfer schwerer Menschenrechtsverletzungen, 80 Die Friedens-Warte 160 (2005); Christian Tomuschat, Darfur -Compensation for the Victims, 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice 579 (2005).Google Scholar

85 BVerfGE 94, 315 (329-330).Google Scholar

86 Oberlandesgericht (OLG - Higher Regional Court) Köln, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2860 (2005).Google Scholar

87 Italian Court of Cassation (Corte di cassazione), 8 February 2002, reproduced in 85 Rivista di diritto internazionale 682 (2002) (with a note by Ronzitti, Natalino). See Micaela Frulli, When are States Liable Towards Individuals for Serious Violations of Humanitarian Law? The Marcović Case, 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice 406 (2003).Google Scholar

88 Italian Court of Cassation, Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment No. 5044 of 11 March 2004, reproduced in: 87 Rivista di diritto internazionale 540 (2004). For comments see Pasquale De Sena/Francesca De Vittor, State Immunity and Human Rights: The Italian Supreme Court Decision on the Ferrini Case, 16 European Journal of International Law 89 (2005).Google Scholar

89 See, e.g., Dolzer, supra note 3, at 324-328.Google Scholar

90 See also Tomuschat, supra note 3, at 174-180.Google Scholar

91 See ILA Newsletter, June 2003 (No. 18), at 6.Google Scholar

92 See the Committee's Draft Report for the 2006 ILA Conference in Toronto, at 3, available at: http://www.ilahq.org/pdf/Compensation%20for%20Victims%20of%20War/Draft%20Report%202006.pdf. For further information on the work of the Committee see the Background Report prepared by Hofmann, Rainer and Riemann, Frank, 17 March 2004, available at: http://www.ilahq.org/pdf/Compensation%20for%20Victims%20of%20War/Background%20 ReportAugust2004.pdf.Google Scholar

93 See Kleffner, Jann K., Improving Compliance with international Humanitarian Law through the Establishment of an Individual Complaints Procedure, 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 237 (2002); Kleffner, Jann K. and Zegveld, Liesbeth, Establishing an Individual Complaints Procedure for Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 384 (2003). On the general problematic of adequately coping with mass claims see the contributions in Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes - Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges (International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration ed., 2006).Google Scholar