Universal jurisdiction over atrocities in Rwanda: Theory and practice

European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 18-47

  Reydams, L ^a,b  

^a KU Leuve ^*  (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041714638     PISSN: 09289569     EISSN: 15718174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157181796X00113     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Luc H. Reydamss Licentiaaa Rechten (K.U. Leuven)) LL.M. (University of Notre Dame)) J.S.D.-candidate (University of Notre Dame)) The author is grateful to the Center for Civil and Human Rights of the University of Notre Dame, and to J. Gurulé, F. Reynttens (who suggested the topic), D. Shellon, W. DeMars and the research librarians of the Notre Dame Law School, I am gratefull as welll to B. Legum, C. Stainier, D. Matas, C. Nicati, J.-D. Schouwey, D. Vandermeersch, E. Gillett M. Parlevliet, E. David, A. Des Forges, L. Pettiti, R. Maison, W. Schabass J. Mendez, L.-M. Courtemanche, J. Selvadoray, Institut Henry Dunantt Centre de Recherches Droit International 90, Amnesty International USA, Amnesty International section française, Amnesty International section suisse, 40 Juristes sans Frontières, World Organization against Torture, Amnesty International London Central Africa Team for the information provided.
2. Regardlng the former Yugoslavia, the author has knowledge about prosecutions in Denmarr (The Prosecution v. Refic Saric, 3rd chamber of the Eastern Division of the Danish High Courtt judgment delivered on 25 Novembee 1994) and Switzerland
3. (cf. letter of the Juge d'instruction in charge of the investigations; on file with author) See also R. Maison, 'Les premiers cas d'application des dispositions pénales des Conventions de Genève par les juridicttons internes', 6 European Journal of International Law (1985) pp. 260-273;
4. See T. Meron, 'War Crimes in Yugoslavia and the Development of International Law', 88 American Journal of Internationaa Law (January 1994) pp. 177-186
5. and T. Meron, 'The International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities', 89 American Journal of International Law (July 1995) pp. 554-577.
6. Governments of Zaire, Kenya, Cameroonn Togo, Ivory Coast and the Central African Republic have all admitted persons accused of genocide in their territories. See Human Rights Watch/Africa and Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme, Rwanda - The Crisis Continues (April 1995) p. 11. See also 'Kenya Refuses to Hand Over Suspectt in Rwandan Slayings', The New York Timess 6 October 1995. Zaire and Tanzania have brought criminal charges against Rwandess citizens, not for their reported roles in the genocide but for crimes in the refugee camps on their territories. Zambia has arrested suspects at the request of the International Tribunal for Rwanda without bringing its own criminal charges.
7. See 'Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal Indicts 2 Men in Jail in Zambia', The New York Timess 20 February 1996, A5.
8. See also 'Statement of the Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda announcing the indictments of Georges Anderson Rutaganda and Jean Paul Akayesu' (Arusha, 19 February 1996) (copy on file with author)
9. See Report of the United Nations Commission of Expertt (UN DOC S/1994//405 of 9 Decembee 1994) and the Reports of the Special Rapporteur on Rwanda to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UN DOC E/CN.4/1995/70 of I1 Novembee 1994 and UN DOC E/CN.4/1996/7 of 24 March 1995)
10. The development of humanitarian law over centuries led to a multilateral treaty practice in the l9th century and the first half of this century (the so called 'Hague' and 'Geneva' law). Humanitarian law and human rights law also have different institutional backgrounds. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)) a non-governmental organization, is the driving force behind the development of humanitarian law while universal human rights standards are promoted by the United Nationss an inter-governmental organization. Against the traditional distinction, see A. Robinsonn 'Humanitarian law and human rights', in C. Swinarski, ed., Studies and Essays on international humanitarian law and Red Cross principles in honour of Jean Pictet (Geneva/The Hague 1984) p. 797: 'But when we look at the substancc of the two disciplines from an analytical point of view, the picture is very differentt We then see that human rights law is the genus of which humanitarian law is the species. Human rights law relates to the basic rights of all beings everywhere, at all times; humanitarian law relates to the rights of particular categories of human beings (⋯) in particular circumstances, i.e. during periods of armed conflict'.
11. Violations of international law can be wrongful or criminall Conduct or acts are wrongful under international law if they are merely forbidden. A wrongful or illegal act might give rise to civil liability of the offenderr Some conduct is not only forbidden but criminall i.e., a rule of international law has made it a crime for → → which the offender is punishable. Criminal violations of international law are often called international crimes' or 'crimes against or under international law'. This paper will use the term international crimes' in die strict sense. International crimes sensu stricto are acts which by their nature are considered against international law. They threaten international peace and security and are criminal under customary international law (e.g. genocide, crimes against humanity). The category of international crimes sensu lato includes also purely conventional international crimes, i.e., crimes which have been the subject of international conventions primarily because of the need for international co-operation in prosecuting them (e.g. aircraft hijacking and drug trafficking). A non-state party can derogate thereof without violating international law (e.g. production, transportation and consumption of drugs can be legal under domestic law). See also B. Yarnold, 'Doctrinal Basis for the International Crimnnalization Process' 8 Templl International and Comparative Law Journal (1994) pp. 85-115.
12. See also L. Green, 'The Intersection of Human Rights and International Criminal Law', in I. Cotler and F. Eliadis, ed., Internationaa Human Rights Law (Montreaa 1992) pp. 231-276.
13. The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials: Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminall of the European Axis (London Charter), 8 August 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 and International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 19 January 1946, T.I.A.S. No. 1589, 4 Bevans 202
14. See: E. Lane, 'Mass Killings by Governments: Lawful in the World Legal Order?' 12 Journal of International Law and Politics (1979) pp. 239-280.
15. See also the opening address for the United States by Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg Trials: 'How a Government treats its own inhabitants generalll is thought to be no concern of other Governments or of international society', Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Washington 1946)) Vol. I, p. 144.
16. Norms of international criminal law can be indirectly enforced by the crimina. courts of the state where the crimes were committed on the basis of the territoriality principle e or by the courts of third states on the basis of the principle of universal jurisdiction. The latter principle provides every state with jurisdiction over a limited category of offences generally recognized as of universal concern, regardless of the location of the offence and the nationalities of the offender and offended. Other bases of domestic jurisdsction under international law are the nationality principle (when the offender is a national of the state), the passive personality principle (when the victim is a national of the state) and the protective principle (when an extraterritorial act threatens the state's security or a basic governmental function). See K. Randalll 'Universal Jurisdiction under International Law', 66 Texas Law Review (1988) pp. 786-788.
17. See also I. Brownliee Principles of Public Internationaa Law (fourth ed.) (Oxford 1990) pp. 298-321.
18. The judicial system in Rwanda now only has about 25 per cent of the personnee previously employed. See: Amnesty International, Rwanda and Burundi - A call for action by the internationaa community (Septembee 1995) p. 19.
19. See also E. Gillett 'L'Etat des procédures devant les juridicttons nationales rwandaises et dtrangères', 186 Dialogue (October-November 1995) p. 4: 'C'est effectivement le génocide qui a décimé la magistrature et rendu le fonctionnement de l'appareil judiciaire difficile voire impossible'.
20. See also Human Rights WatcheAfrica and Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme, Rwanda - The Crisis Continuee (April 1995)
21. See also Amnessy International, Rwanda - Crying out for Justice (April 1995)
22. See also A. D. Lowelll 'Rwanda Needs Justice System' Legal Times, 3 April 1995, p. 23.
23. See also Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch World Report 1996. Eventt of 1995 (New York/Washington/Los Angeles/London/Brussels) pp. 41-47.
24. T. Meron, 'The International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities', loc. cit., p. 576.
25. (3) 'jurisdiction to enforce', (compétence exécutive extraterritoriale) i.e. to induce or compel compllance or punish non-compliance with its laws or regulations, whether through the courts or by use of executive, administrative, police, or other non-judicial action. 'Jurisdictionn in this article means 'jurisdiction to adjudicatt'. See also Institute of International Law, 'The Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of States' 65-1 Yearbook (1993) pp 1-190;
26. See also Harvard Research Project in International Law, 'Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime', 29 American Journal of Internationaa Law (1935) Supplement), pp. 439-645;
27. See K. Randall, 'Universal Jurisdiction under International Law', loc. cit., p. 788.
28. E.g. United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruell Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 Decembee 1984, reprinted in 23 I.L.M. 1027 (1984), and International Convention Against the Taking of Hostagess 18 Decembee 1979, reprinted in 18 I.L.M. 1456 (1979), and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft [Hague Convention] 16 Decembee 1970, 860 U.N.T.S. 105. For a complete overview of states' obligations in this regard, see M. C. Bassiouni and E. Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare - The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law (Dordrecht/Boston/Londond 1995), 40 p.
29. On the topic of concurrent jurisdiction, see: S. Feller, 'Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction in the International Sphere' 16 Israel Law Review (1981), pp. 40-74.
30. See B. Graefrath, 'Universal Criminal Jurisdiction and an International Court', 11/2 European Journal of International Law (1990) pp. 67-88.
31. T. Meron, 'The International Criminalization of Internaa Atrocities', loc, cit., p. 576.
32. C. Van Den Wyngaert, 'Double Criminality as a Requirement to Jurisdiction', in N. Jareborg, ed., Double Criminality - Studies in International Criminay Law (Uppsala) p.48.
33. For a recent and very profound analysis of the laws of warfare, see E. David, Principes de droit des conflits armés (Brussell 1994), 779 p.
34. See note 8 at § 108. See also F. Reynttenss l'Afrique des Grands Lacs en Crise (Paris 1994) p. 297. But see also: E. David, op. cit., p. 140.
35. and F. Seyerstcd, United Nations Forces in the Law of Peace and War (Leyden 1966) pp. 216-219; David and Seyersted argue that, in some circumstances, conflicts involving a United Nations peace-keeping force must be governed by the laws of international armed conflict. Ten 'blue helmetts of the UNAMIR peace-keeping force were killed in the first days of the massacres. Therefore, an argument could be made that the conflict was international at some point in time. Moreover, Belgium and France led military operattons in Rwanda to evacuate their citizens.
36. Protocol II Additionaa to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, adopted 12 Decembee 1977, reprinted in 16 I.L.M. 1442 (1977). Rwanda succeeded to Protocol II Additional on 19 Novembee 1984. Article 1 providess 'I. This Protocoll which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additionaa to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protectton of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organised armed groups which, under responsible commandd exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operattons and to implement this Protocoll 2. This Protocol shall not apply to situattons of internal disturbances and tensionss such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed contlicts.' Article 4.2 states: '[T]he following acts against the persons [who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities] are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever: (⋯).' (emphasis added) See also H. McCoubry, International Humanitarian Law (Dartmoutt 1990) pp. 171-222.
37. See also G. Herczegh, 'Protocol Additionaa to the Geneva Conventions on the Protectton of the Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts', in G. Haraszti, ed., Question of Internationaa Law Vol. 2 (Budapest 1981) pp. 71-84.
38. See also A. Cassesse, ed., The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict (Napoll 1979) 278 p.
39. and The New Humanitarian Law of Armee Conflict (Napoll 1980) 461 p.
40. See 'Criminal Responsibility for Violattons of the Laws of War', in A. Cassesse, ed., op. cit. (1979), pp. 123-169;
41. See also B. Röling, 'Aspects of the Criminal Responsibility for Violations of the Laws of War', in A. Cassesse, ed., op. cit. (1980), pp. 199-2311
42. See also Y. Sandoz, 'Implementing International Humanitarian Law', in Internationaa Dimensions of Humanitarian Law (UNESCO/Henry Dunant Institute -Dordrecht/Boston/London 1988) pp. 259-282;
43. Professor Meron about war crimes in the former Yugoslavia: 'Whether the conflicts in Yugoslavia are characterised as internal or international is critically important. The fourth Hague Convention of 1907, which codified the principle laws of war and served as the normative core for the post-World War II war crimes prosecutions, applies to grave breaches provisions only. The other principle prong of the penal laws of war, the grave breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I, is also directed to international wars. Violattons of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which concerns internal wars, do not constitute grave breaches giving rise to universal criminal jurisdictton. Were any part of the conflict deemed internal rather than international, me perpetrators of even the worst atrocities might try to challenge prosecutions for war crimes or grave breachess but not for genocide or crimes against humanity.' T. Meron, 'War Crimes in Yugoslavia and the Development of International Law', 88 American Journal of Internationaa Law (January 1994) pp. 78-80;
44. See also 'Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court' (UN DOC A/48/10, Annex) Reprinted in 33 I.L.M. 253 (1994). Article 22 limits the Court's jurisdiction to 'grave breachess of the four Geneva Conventions and of Protocol I. See also 'Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Expertt for the former Yugoslavia' (UN DOC S/1994/674) at § 42: '[Common Article 3 and Protocol II] do not use the terms grave breaches or war crimes. Further, the content of customary law applicabll to internal armed conflict is debatablle As a result, in generall unless the parties to an internar armed conflict agree otherwise, the only offences committed in internal armed conflict for which universal jurisdiction exists are "crimes against humanity" and genocide, which apply irrespective of the conflicts' classification'.
45. See also 'Preliminary remarks of the ICRC on the Setting-up of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia'
46. cited in T. Meron, 'The International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities', loc. cit., p. 559: '[A]ccording to humanitarian law as it stands today, the notion of war crimes is limited to situations of international armed conflict'.
47. K. Randalll 'Universal Jurisdiction under International Law', op. cit., p. 805.
48. M. C. Bassiouni, 'Crimes against Humanity: the Need for a Specialised Convention', 31 Colombia Journal of Transnational Law (1994) pp. 457-494.
49. The Control Council's formulation of 'crimes against humanity' was later followee by the International Law Commission's restatement of the 'Nuremberg Principles', Report of the International Law Commission, UN DOC A/1116 (1950) reprinted in 44 American Journal of Internattonaa Law (1950 Supplement), pp. I25-134.
50. See also Bassiouni, 'Crimes against Humanity: the Need for a Specialised Convention', loc. cit., p. 464.
51. Apart from the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, thirty one individuals were prosecuted between 1945 and 1990 in six countries for crimes against humanity, all of which had been committtd during the Second World War. See J. Rikhof, 'Crimes against humanity. Customary International Law and the International Tribunall for Bosnia and Rwanda' 62 The National Journal of Constitutional Law (1996).
52. In 1992, the French Court of Cassatton restricted crimes against humanity to those 'working in the interestt of the European Axis countries'. See C. Grynfogel, 'Le concept de Crime contre I'humanité 6 Hier, aujourd'hui et demain', 74 Rcvue de Droit Penal et de Crininologie (1994) pp. 25-26.
53. See also L. S. Wexler, 'The Interpretation of the Nuremberg Principles by the French Court of Cassatton: From Touvier to Barbie and Back Again', Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 32 (1994) p. 361. The Australian War Crimes Amendment Act 1988 and the British War Crimes Act 1991 reach only offences occurring during the period of the Second World War.
54. See J.M. Wagnerr 'US Prosecution of Past and Future War Criminals and Criminall Against Humanity: Proposall for reform Based on the Canadian and Australian Experience', 29 Virginia Journal of Internationaa Law (1989) p. 889. Howeverr Canada's Crimes against Humanity Act 1987 authorizes the prosecution of any crime against humanity, whenever and wherever committed. (Section 7.3.71-3.77 of the Canadian Criminal Code, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter C-46).
55. The Nuremberg defendantt were indicted for genocide under both the war crimes and crimes against humanity provisions of the London Charterr See M. Lippman, 'The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Forty-five Years Later', 8 Templl International and Comparative Law Journal (Spring 1994) p. 3. The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice considerr the prohibition of genocide as a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted. See Reservations to the Convention on Genocide Case (Adv. Op.), 1951 I.C.J. Rep. 15.
56. The draft of the United Nations Secretary General provided for universal punishment by any state which apprehends an individuaa who is suspected of genocide, irrespective of the territory in which the offence was committed. The Ad Hoc Committee rejected the principle of universal jurisdictton. See M. Lippman, 'The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Forty-five Years Later', loc. cit., pp. 57-64.
57. Lippman, 'The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Forty-five Years Later', loc. cit., pp. 12-3.
58. Y. Dinstein, 'Internattonaa Criminal Law', 20 Israel Law Review (Spring-Summer 1985) pp. 212-214.
59. See also J. Paust, 'Congress and Genocide: They're Not Going to Get Away With It', 11 Michigan Journal of Internationaa Law (1989) pp. 90-93.
60. See also K. Randall, 'Universal Jurisdiction under International Law', loc. cit., pp. 834-837: 'Universal jurisdiction over genocide under customary law can coexist with territoriality jurisdiction under treaty law; the former relates to a jurisdectional right, the latter to a jurisdictional obligation. Every state has the right to exercise universal jurisdiction over genoc, dal acts, wherever and by whomevee committed, under customary law. The parties to the Genocide Convention simply have obligated themselves to prosecutt offences specifically committed within their territory.
61. Under German law, genocide belongs pursuant to Section 6 (1) of the criminal code (StGB) to offences subject to the principle of universal jurisdictton. Idem in Finland: Chapter 1, Section 3(2) of the Finnish penal code. Idem in Romanei (see C. Mihailia, 'Les crimes internationaux et le droit penal interne. Romania. National Report', 60 Revue International de Droit Pénal, p. 460. Idem in Israell Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law 5710/1950, Section I(a). See also: Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 404, Reporter's note: 'While the Convention provides for trial by the territorial state or by an international penal tribunal to be establlshed, universal jurisdiction to punish genocide is widely accepted as a principle of customary law'.
62. Commission on Human Rights Resolution S-3/1 of 25 May 1994.
63. Security Council Resolution 935 of I July 1994.
64. The Tutsi government had several reasons: it strongly favoured the death pena.ty (Article 23 of the Statute provides only for imprisonment), it did not agree with the proposed temporal jurisdiction which would overlook the plannsng of the genocide and it opposed the Tribunalls subject matter jurisdiction over serious breaches of international humanitarian law (the Commission of Expertt had concluded that both sides had violated the obligattons set forth in common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions and Protocol II). See M. A. Gordon, 'The Efficacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda' 1 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, (1995), pp. 221-222; The Rwandess government proposed the establlshment of a national court with competencc over genocide only. See Le Monde, 1 November, 1994.
65. A. D. Lowelll 'Rwanda Needs Justice System' Legal Times. 3 April 1995, p. 23. By way of comparison, the Nuremberg trials involved 22 defendants, but thousands of other war crimes trials took place before domestic courts. Hence the importancc of prosecutions by third states in the case of Rwanda, especially because many of those responsible fled, leaving behind a totally devastated justice system. (See note 16).
66. See M. C. Bassiouni, Crimes Againss Humanity in Internationaa Criminal Law (1992), at 503: 'It could be argued that the (negative) obligation not to grant asylum has entered into customarr international law and constitutes a 'general principle of law'.
67. 'The most one could say is that overwhelming (or even unanimous) approval is an indication of opinio juris sive necessitatis; but this does not create law without any concomitant practice, and that practice will not be brought about until states modify their national policies and legislation'. See E. Suy, 'Innovationn in International Law-Making Processes', in Macdonald, Johnston and Morris, ed., The International Law and Policy of Human Welfare (1978)
68. cited in F. Kirgis, Internationaa Organizations in their Legal Setting (second edition) (St. Paull Minnesota 1993) pp. 340-3411
69. For an overview of the relationssip between international criminal law and Belgian domestic law, see C. Van Den Wyngaert, 'Les crimes internationaux et le droit p6nal interne. Belgium. National Report', 60 Revue Internationale de Droit Penal (1989) pp. 153-68. Belgium has contributed I,15,949.49 to the Voluntary Fund to Supporr the Activities of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which is ± one fifth of the total contributions (information current on 18 January 1996, cf. letter from the Tribunal to the author)
70. Law of 16 June 1993, 'Loi relative a la répression des infractions graves aux Conventions internationales de Geneve du 12 aout 1949 et aux Protocoles I et II du 8 juin 1977, additionnels à ces conventions', publlshed in Moniteur Belge, 5 August 1993. For a profound analysis of the law, see A. Andries, E. David, C. Van Den Wyngaert and J. Verhaegen, 'Commentaire de la loi du 16 juin 1993 relative a la repression des infracttons graves au droit international humanitaire', Revue de Droit Penal et de Criminologie, 74 (June 1994)) pp. 1114-1-84; Belgium ratified in 1952 the Genocide Convention but has failed to enact domestic legislation to implement the Convention's objectives and it has not ratified the United Nations Torture Convention of 1984.
71. In Belgium and France, both the state and private citizens (parties civiles) may initiate criminal prosecutions. The private citizens must have an interest in the case, i.e., be a victim or a close relative thereof, or be somehow injured by the criminal act. Felony cases are first sent to an investigating magistrate (juge d'instruction) who assembles and considerr all the evidence to support the indictment, arrest and eventual trial of the accused. The principle of 'discretionary prosecution' (opportunité des poursuitess does not apply to criminal proceedings initiated by private citizens via a complaint with a juge d'instruction. The decision whether there are enough grounds to warrant a trial is taken by a court (chambre de conseil) after a hearing of the Prosecutor (Procureur)) the juge d'instruction, the private plaintifff and the defendant. See R. Declercq, 'Les rapportt entre l'organisation judiciaire et la procédurr pénale en Belgique', 60 Revue Internationall de Droit Pénal (1989) p. 699.
72. According to some commentators, the Belgian law is a first and unique. See A. Andries, E. David, C. Van Den Wyngaert and J. Verhaegen, op cit., p. 1133. See also T. Meron, 'The International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities', op. cit., p. 577. It is true that it is the first law which explicitly penallses internal atrocities. However, Article 108 of the Swiss Military Penal Code did already implicitly so. (See infra at 5.4).
73. Memberr of Parliament questtonee the Government about the presence of Rwandese 'refugees' in Belgium. The Committee for the Respect of Human Rights and Democracy in Rwanda denouncee in press conferences the laxity of the Belgian judicial authorities. A legal journal published very persuasive articles about the application of the War Crimes Law to the situatton in Rwanda, see M.-A. Swartenbroekx, 'Rwanda: lutter contre l'imptnité est un devoir universel', 1268 Journal des Proces (14 October 1994) pp. 17-19
74. and 'Génocide et massacres au Rwanda: à quand des arrestations en Belgique?' 278 Journal des Procès, (3 March 1995) pp. 22-24.
75. For an overview of the relationship between international crimes and Canadian domestic law, see L. Kos-Rabcewicz-Zubkowski, 'Les crimes internationaux et le droit pénal interne. Canada. Rapporr National', 60 Revue Internationale de Droit Penal (1989) pp. 195-213.
76. After the publlcation of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminall in 1986, Canadian law was amended to facilitate actions against war criminall and criminall against humanity. The legal remedies availabll to address the problem of war criminall are extradition, prosecution in Canada and denaturalization and deportation. See W. Hobson, 'A Canadian Perspective on the Political Offences Exception in Relation to War Crimes' 62 Revue Internationale de Droit Penal (1991) pp. 339-347. The Canadian Immigration Act was amended to prohibit admission of war criminall and criminall against humanity. Article 19 (1) of the Immigration Act states: 'No person shall be granted admission who is a member of any of the following classes: (j) persons who there are reasonabll grounds to believe have committed an act or omission outside Canada that constituted a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsection 7(3.76) of the Criminal Code and that, if it had been committed in Canada, would have constituted an offence against the laws of Canada in force at the time of the act or omission"
77. The.se atrocities were investigated by a commission of international human rights NGOs. See Fédération Internationale des Droits de l'Homme, Africa Watch, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme et des Peuples, Centre Internationale des Droits de la Personne et du Developpement Démocratique, Rapport de la commlision internationall d'enquête sur les violations des droits de I'homme au Rwanda depuis le ler octobre 1990 (8 March 1993) 99 p. On pp. 24 and 25, the commission cites at great length Mugesera's speech. See also W. Schabass 'Atrocities and the Law', Canadian Lawyer (August/September 1993) pp. 33-36.
78. Since its enactment, four prosecutions have been launched against Nazi war criminall who had become Canadian residentt or citizens. See D. Matas, Justice Delayed (Toronto, 1987)) p. 273.
79. See also D. Matas, 'Prosecution in Canada for Crimes Against Humanity', 11 New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law (1990) pp. 347-355.
80. See also D. Matas, 'War Crimes Justice - Five Years Later', in I. Cotler, ed., Nuremberg Forty Years Later. The Struggle against Injustice in Our Time (Montreal & Kingston, 1995) pp. 212-219.
81. Se alsoi. McKenzie, War Criminall in Canada (Calgary 1995) 224 p.
82. D. Matas, 'War Crimes Justice - Five Years Later', loc. cit., p. 218.
83. For an overview of the relationship between international criminal law and French domestic law, see A. Huet and R. Koering-Joulin, Droit pénal internationaa (Paris 1994) pp. 103-57
84. and C. Lombois, Droit pénal international (1972) pp. 223-560. The relevant article in the French Constitution is Article 55 which declares conventional international law superior to French domesttc law: 'Les traités ou accords régulièrement ratifiés ou approuvés ont, dès leur publication, une authorité supérieurr à celles des lois (⋯)'
85. See R. Maison, 'Les premiers cas d'applicatton des disposition penales des Conventions de Geneve par les juridictions internes', loc. cit.
86. Arrêt du 24 novembrr 1994 - Cour d'Appel de Paris - quatrième Chambrr d'Accusation, (on fie with author)) Regarding universal jurisdiction over torture, the Court stated that the French law requires an objective nexus, namely the presence of the offender in France, and since there were no indications of presencee the French judiciary was incompetent to investigate the complaints. With regard to jurisdiction over war crimes, the Court found that the four Geneva Conventions are not self-executing, and absent implementing legislation, French courts have no jurisdiction ('[C]ompte tenu de la généralité de la rédaction de leurs articles relatifs à la compétence, un texte spécifique d'application aurait pu y trouver sa place'). The Courtts rejectton of jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions was sharply criticized by C. Lombois who argues that they are self-executing and that there is statutory authority to apply them, namely Article 689 of the Criminal Code which providess 'Les auteurs ou complicee d'infractions commises hors du territoire de la République peuvent être poursu:vis et jugés en France (⋯) lorsqu'une convention internationale donne compétence aux juridictionn françaises pour connaître de l'infraction' See C. Lombois, 'De la compassion territoriale', Revue de science criminelll et de droit penal compare (April-June 1995) pp. 399-403.
87. See 'Un pretre rwandaisi soupçonné d'être mêlé au génocide, a ete interpellé dans la Drôme' Le Monde, 31 July 1995, p. 4.
88. See also Véronique Mauruss 'Des associations se félicitenn que la justice se saisisse du cas du prêtre rwandais Wenceslas', Le Monde, August 6-7 1995, p. 8.
89. Already in 1980, before the adoption of the Torture Convention in 1984, an American Court had found that the prohibition on torture has become part of customary international law. (Filartega v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876). Contra: L. Sunga, Individuaa Responsibility in Internationaa Law for Serious Human Rights Violations (Dordrecht/Boston London 1992) p. 86: 'Until states bring their actual practice into conformity with the obligations prohibiting torture they have formally recognized, it cannot be realistically stated that the norm against torture has become firmly established as a rule of general international law'. Once a norm has the status of customary international law, the principle of universality applies.
90. See 'Draft Resolution on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of States', Institute of International Law, 65-1 Yearbook (1993) pp. 177-178; Article 8.3 providess 'The principal of universality shall apply to offences as defined under conventional and customary law, such as piracy, the hi-jacking of aircraftt terrorism, and the trade of narcotics'. Article 8.4 covers the situation here presented: 'Jurisdiction under the previous paragraph may be exercised irrespective of signature or ratification of any international convention by the state of the nationality of the accused'
91. For an overview of the relationship between international criminal law and Swiss domesttc law, see J.-D. Schouwey, 'Les crimes internationaux et le droit penal interne. Suisse. National Report'. 60 Revue Internationa, lde Droit Pénal (1989) pp. 465-490;
92. For an article about the implementation of the Geneva Conventions and additionaa Protocols in Swiss domesttc law, see J.-D. Schouwey, 'Crimes de guerre: un état des lieux du droit suisse' Revue Internationale de Criminologie et de Police Technique (1995) 44 p. It deserves to be menttonee that Switzerland is not a party to the Genocide Convention.
93. See F. Lauenerr 'Killen in Kigali, bussen in Bern', 23 Die Wellwoche, 8 June 1995, p. 47.
94. See also C. Braeckman, 'Jours tranquilles ⋯' Le Soir 27 February 1995.
95. See F. Lauenerr 'Killen in Kigasi, bussen in Bern', loc. cit. (confirmed by the Juge a"Instruction in a letter to the author)
96. J.-D. Schouwey, 'Crimes de guerre: un dtat des lieux du droit suisse', loc. cit.: 'Le législateur suisse est parti du principe que I'objet des infractions était décrit avec suffisamment de présisions dans le droit conventionnel et coutumier et qu'il pouvait, de ce fait, s'y référer directement, sans retranscrire des dispositions en droit interne'
97. J.-D. Schouwey, 'Crimes de guerre: un état des lieux du droit suisse' loc. cit. 1.6.
98. J.-D. Schouwey, 'Crimes de guerre: un état des lieux du droit suisse', loc. cit. 2.1. and 2.2.
99. The expression was coined by T. Meron. (See T. Meron, 'The International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities', loc. cit.).