Crimes That Do Not Become Time-Barred

Dr Enas Mohamed Ahmed
The international community has made considerable efforts to establish clear legal rules defining the different categories of international crimes, determining how their perpetrators should be punished, and specifying the courts before which they should be tried and the legal procedures to be followed.
With the development of international law and the emergence of international criminal law as a specialised branch concerned with international crimes that threaten international peace and security, efforts have been made to prevent violations of human rights and international law, prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity, and establish firm legal safeguards to prevent perpetrators from escaping justice.
The principle that war crimes are not subject to a statute of limitations has been one of the most important safeguards against impunity. Such crimes are often difficult to prosecute immediately after they are committed. In many cases, a considerable period of time passes between the commission of the crime and the pursuit of the perpetrator, making impunity one of the greatest challenges facing the concept of justice.
This raises a fundamental question about the temporal scope of war crimes: when is an offence considered a war crime? According to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I of 1977, the relevant period begins with the outbreak of war. It continues throughout the armed conflict, whether international or non-international. Their application may also extend to periods of truce and, in certain circumstances, even peacetime.
Some scholars of international law prefer the term “armed conflicts” to “war”, because the concept of war encompasses a number of legal notions, including aggression, legitimate self-defence, security and stability. Some jurists have also used the term “war” in expressions such as the Cold War, Star Wars and the war on corruption. In this sense, the term may be regarded as more political and social than strictly legal.
In all cases, however, crimes committed during periods of war and armed conflict do not become time-barred. In this context, the International Criminal Court was established to deter international crimes. It necessarily had to be supported by a body of legal principles serving as its reference and legal foundation, foremost among them the principle that war crimes and crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitations.
International law differs from domestic legal systems in this respect. National laws have traditionally recognised the principle that criminal liability or punishment may lapse after a specified period of time has elapsed since the commission of an offence, thereby extinguishing its legal consequences. International law, by contrast, does not permit international crimes to become time-barred.
From a legal perspective, criminal limitation may be defined as a mechanism by which the effects of a crime or a criminal conviction are extinguished after a specified period of time. It may therefore constitute a means by which the right to enforce a criminal judgment expires. In this context, the lapse of time may extinguish the state’s right to prosecute the offender, either because its right to bring the person to trial has expired or because its right to impose the punishment has ceased.
It is worth noting that some international conventions, including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, did not expressly provide that international crimes should not be subject to limitation. Nor did the United Nations General Assembly explicitly incorporate this principle into the Nuremberg Principles adopted in 1950. This created a significant and evident legal gap.
This gap drew the United Nations General Assembly’s attention to the importance and necessity of addressing the deficiency. Consequently, the international community prepared a convention to regulate the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes. The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity was adopted in 1968 and entered into force on 11 November 1970.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court likewise provides, in Article 29, that no statute of limitations shall apply to the following crimes:
genocide;
crimes against humanity;
war crimes; and
the crime of aggression.
The crime of aggression is among the most serious of these offences because, in many circumstances, it provides the gateway through which other crimes follow. Once aggression or war occurs, war crimes, crimes against humanity and, in some circumstances, genocide may be committed as a consequence of that aggression.
There is also a European convention concerning the non-applicability of statutory limitations to crimes against humanity and war crimes. It was concluded on 25 January 1974 and entered into force on 27 June 2003.
For these conventions to be effective, states parties must incorporate their provisions into domestic legislation and adapt their laws so international crimes cannot become time-barred, thereby bringing national legislation into conformity with international obligations. International justice also complements national justice in achieving accountability. This is realised through the principle of judicial cooperation, which helps ensure that perpetrators do not escape punishment.
Thus, these are interconnected stages in a broader legal process through which the principle of non-applicability of statutory limitations to international crimes becomes an international obligation.
However, no universally binding conventions govern judicial cooperation for all states. Such cooperation generally occurs through bilateral or multilateral treaties, which may also provide judicial frameworks for states that have not ratified particular conventions. Many of these arrangements take the form of technical agreements between national law-enforcement agencies and the judicial authorities of the countries concerned. At the same time, these obligations must be incorporated into domestic legislation; otherwise, the international commitment will remain no more than a legal principle written on paper.
For this reason, the United Nations adopted a resolution concerning the Principles of International Cooperation in the Detection, Arrest, Extradition and Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. This was Resolution 3074 (XXVIII), adopted on 3 December 1973.
At the national level, although Sudan has neither signed nor ratified the 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity adopted by the United Nations, war crimes and crimes against humanity are nevertheless not subject to limitation under customary international law. Sudan can therefore benefit from these established legal rules.
Sudan has also reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of justice and legal accountability for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity on numerous international platforms. Most recently, this was reflected in Sudan’s statement before the Security Council in response to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s semi-annual report on Darfur in July 2026. Sudan’s Mission in New York reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring justice, preventing impunity, providing redress for victims, remedying harm, and consolidating the rule of law—all essential pillars for achieving sustainable peace and delivering justice in practice.
Sudan has also renewed its full commitment to cooperating with the International Criminal Court under Security Council Resolution 1593, adopted on 31 March 2005, which referred the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
In light of all the foregoing, it would have been reasonable to expect the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for suspected leaders of the terrorist Rapid Support Forces militia who documented their own involvement in the atrocities committed during the Genina massacre more than three years ago. Their own documentation amounted, in effect, to a public acknowledgement of the atrocities they had committed.
The same applies to the war crimes committed in El Fasher, despite the existence of substantial evidence and documentation, eyewitness testimony, reports by fact-finding missions, reports by international and regional organisations, reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and satellite imagery documenting the violations and atrocities that took place on the ground. Yet, despite this, there has been delay and failure in pursuing justice and securing redress for the victims of these violations.
Human beings are the most important element to which the international community must devote its attention. Protecting their rights by ensuring that war crimes and crimes against humanity do not become time-barred is the first step towards safeguarding victims’ rights, delivering justice, consolidating the rule of law, and preserving international peace and security.
The international community must understand that justice has only one face.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=17649