The German Federal Supreme Court and the Prosecution of International Crimes Committed in the former Yugoslavia

Journal of International Criminal Justice

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 381-399

  Rissing van Saan, Ruth ^a  

^a Federal Supreme Court ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23944515016     PISSN: 14781387     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqi038     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (93)

1. The Federal Attorney-General in Karlsruhe is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of genocide and other international crimes of fundamental importance. Cases are tried before specialized Higher Regional Courts defined by Statute (s. 1, §120 No. 8 and s. 1, § 142a Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz - GVG).
2. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1994) 232-233.
3. Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt - BGBI) 1995 I, 485ff.
4. Cf. C. Kreß, 'Der Jugoslawien-Strafgerichtshof im Grenzbereich zwischen internationalem bewaffneten Konflikt and Bürgerkrieg', in H. Fischer and S.R. Lüder (eds), Völkerrechtliche Verbrechen vor dem Jugoslawien-Tribunal, nationalen Gerichten und dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof (Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 1999), 15-62;
5. R. Griesbaum, Über die Verfahrensgrundsätze des Jugoslawien-Strafgerichtshofs, auch im Vergleich zum nationalen Recht', ibid., 117-136.
6. W. Schabas, 'National Courts Finally Begin to Prosecute Genocide, the "Crime of Crimes", 1 JICJ (2003) 39-63, at 53ff.
7. K. Ambos, 'Zur Bestrafung von Verbrechen im internationalen, nicht-internationalen und internen Konflikt', in J. Hasse, E. Müller and P. Schneider (eds), Humanitäres Völkerrecht. Politische, rechtliche und strafgerichtliche Dimensionen (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2001) 325-352, at 334ff.
8. S. Wirth, 'Germany's New International Crimes Code: Bringing a Case to Court', 1 JICJ (2003) 151-168.
9. 'Law on the Federal Republic of Germany's accession to the Genocide Convention of 9 December 1948 and on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', Federal Law Gazette (BGBI) 1954 II, 729.
10. G. Werle, 'Menschenrechtsschutz durch Völkerstrafrecht', 109 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (1997) 808-829, at 811.
11. Federal Law Gazette (BGBI) 1954 II, 781.
12. Federal Law Gazette (BGBI) 1990 II, 1550.
13. According to §91 of the GDR's Criminal Code (DDR-StGB), crimes against humanity were punishable where a defendant had undertaken to persecute, expel or to destroy in whole or in part national, ethnic, racial or religious groups or to subject those groups to other forms of inhumane treatment.
14. On this, see G. Werle, 'Völkerstrafrecht und geltendes deutsches Strafrecht', 16 Juristenzeitung (2000) 755-760, at 757.
15. Therefore, a common - and not unfounded - view at the end of the 1980s considered the Genocide Convention of little significance; see B. Jähnke in Leipziger Kommentar, StGB - Großkommentar (11th edition, Berlin-New York: De Gruyter,1994) §220a, §2.
16. According to the Bavarian Higher Regional Court (BayObLG), in its judgment on 23 May 1997, 6 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1998) 392-395;
17. case note and commentary by K. Ambos, 3 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1998) 138-140;
18. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 45, 64-91, at 66ff
19. see also Schabas, supra note 5; at 59ff.
20. Relying on treaty law (the Genocide Convention) permitted the courts to examine the facts and eventually to pass judgment. Had they followed customary international law, they would have been obliged to refer to the Federal Constitutional Court as a matter of constitutional law (s. 2, Art. 100 GG); see infra, Section 3.
21. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 45, at 66ff
22. cf. also Schabas supra note 5, at 59ff.
23. Federal Supreme Court, ibid., at 68.
24. Judgement of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court (BayObLG) note 15, at 395
25. Federal Supreme Court, 5 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1994) 232-233, including an approving commentary by D. Oehler, 10 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1994) 485.
26. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 27, 30-34, at 32, including an approving commentary by D. Oehler, Juristische Rundschau (1977) 424;
27. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 34, 334-345, at 338.
28. Federal Supreme Court, supra note 18, at 233;
29. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 45, at 68ff.
30. To that effect, see in particular D. Oehler, Internationales Strafrecht (2nd edition, Köln: Heymann, 1983), §§ 847ff
31. A. Eser in A. Schönke and H. Schröder (eds), Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar (26th edition, Munich: Beck, 2001), preface to §§ 3-7 and 8.
32. K. Ambos, 'Aktuelle Probleme der deutschen Verfolgung von Kriegsverbrechen' in Bosnien-Herzegowina', 5 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1999) 226-230;
33. O. Lagodny and C. Nill-Theobald, commentary on the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 45, 64, in 5 Juristische Rundschau (2000) 205-207;
34. G. Werle, commentary on the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 45, 64 in 23 Juristenzeitung (1999) 1181-1184; the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court's Chamber of 12 December 2000 (2 BvR 1290/ 9925 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1848-1853) remained silent on this point because the complainant, Jorgić, who was the defendant in the case before the Federal Supreme Court (see judgment in BGHSt. 45, 64), was not disadvantaged by a possible excessive extension of the national limits of courts' jurisdiction.
35. S. Wäpsi, 'Die Arbeit der Internationalen Strafgerichtshöfe für das ehemalige Jugoslawien und Ruanda, Herausforderungen für die Anklage im internationalen Umfeld', 34 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2004) 2449-2457;
36. M. Bungenberg, 'Extraterritoriale Strafrechtsanwendung bei Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und Völkermord', 39 Archiv des Völkerrecht (2001) 170-201 also comments on the Federal Supreme Cout's judgment on genocide of 30 April 1999, and finds that the development of human rights protection in recent years presents one of the most dynamic evolutionary processes of modern international law (at 186ff).
37. Cf., for a German view, C. Kreß, 'Friedenssicherungs- und Konfliktvölkerrecht auf der Schwelle zur Postmoderne', Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (1996) 638-648;
38. idem., in H. Fischer and S.R. Lüder (eds), supra note 4, at 37ff
39. K. Ambos, 'Bestätigung der deutschen Strafgewalt f⊣ur Kriegsverbrechen in Bosnien-Herzegowina', 2 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (2000) 71-72.
40. Bungenberg, supra note 24, at 193ff.
41. E. Hilgendorf, 'Commentary on the Federal Supreme Court's Judgement', BGHSt. 46, 292
42. 2 Juristische Rundschau (2002), 82-84.
43. See, in the context of the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant case, C. Kreß, in 114 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (2002) 818ff, esp. 843ff.
44. Cf., among others, G. Werle, supra note 12, including further references.
45. 6 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1998) 392-395, at 394.
46. Opinion and Judgement, Tadić (IT-94-1-T), Trial Chamber II, 7 May 1997, §§ 569ff.
47. See supra note 31, Separating and Dissenting Opinion of Judge McDonald.
48. Judgement, Delalić et al. (IT-96-21-T), Trial Chamber, 16 November 1998, §§ 211ff.
49. Kreß, supra note 4, at 23ff.
50. German criminal law (§52 and 53 StGB) distinguishes certain categories of perpetration: Where an offender commits several crimes in a sequence of different actions, the law refers to a plurality of concurring offences (Realkonkurrenz), each of which is subject to individual punishment and sentencing. All individual sentences are then combined into one cumulative sentence (Gesamtstrafe). Where an offender's single action satisfies the elements of several crimes, the law refers to one uniform offence (Idealkonkurrenz), carrying only one sentence, taken from the crime carrying the highest maximum penalty. To the disadvantage of the offender, the courts, when setting the actual sentence, regularly take into account that more than one crime was committed. The ICTYSt. is silent on the issue of concurring crimes. But the Trial Chamber II in Kupreškić et al. (Judgement (IT-95-16 F), Trial Chamber II, 14 January 2000, §§ 668 and 678) decided along similar lines, by way of comparative reasoning; see, for further analysis, C.-F. Stuckenberg, in H. Fischer, C. Kreß, and S.R. Lüder (eds), International and National Prosecution of Crimes Under International La: Current Developments (2nd edition, Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz, 2004), 559ff.
51. The wording of §6 of the Code on International Criminal Law corresponds with the old version of genocide in §220a StGB, apart from several linguistic differences, e.g. the reference to ethnic groups instead of groups 'determined by their popular culture'. It also mirrors, by and large, the definition in Art. II of the Genocide Convention and Art. 6 ICCSt. The German legislature had no intention to alter the meaning of the crime of genocide (see reference to the Bundesrat (Bundesratsvorlage) on 18 January 2002, Official Publications of the Bundesrat (Bundesrats-Drucksache) 29/02, reasons on §6 of the Code on International Criminal Law). Therefore, observations made in the context of §220a StGB (older version) apply equally to §6 VStGB.
52. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 45, 64-91, at 80ff
53. see Schabas, supra note 5, at 58ff, H. Vest, 'Humanitätsverbrechen: Herausforderung für das Individualstrafrecht?', 113 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft (2001) 458-498, at 480ff
54. for a view in favour of cumulative protection of rights, see C. Kreß, in 3 Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 2003, §220a/ §6 VStGB, at 2.
55. Cf., ICTR, Judgement, Akayesu (96-4-T), 2 September 1998, §6.3.1.
56. Federal Supreme Court, supra note 36, at 82.
57. Approving, from a German point of view, the commentary on Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 45, 64: K. Ambos, 8 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1999) 404-406;
58. O. Lagodny and C. Nill-Theobald, 5 Juristische Rundschau (2000) 205-207
59. G. Werle, 23 Juristenzeitung (1999) 1181-1184.
60. The reference to one uniform crime (in German: Tatbestandliche Handlungseinheit) indicates that the elements of the crime used to describe the sanctionable actions can capture a sequel of natural actions but, at the same time, unite them into one single legal unit.
61. Approvingly, K. Ambos, supra note 37, at 405
62. idem., 'Immer mehr Fragen im internationalen Strafrecht'. 12 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (2001) 628-633, at 629;
63. O. Lagodny and C. Nill-Theobald (eds), supra note 37
64. C. Werle, supra note 37, at 1184.
65. For a different view, see Judgement, Goran Jelisić (IT-9-10-T) Trial Chamber I, 14 December 1999, §§ 85ff
66. also ICTR, Judgment, Akayesu (96-4-T), Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998, §§ 538ff.
67. Along the same lines, see ICTY, Krstić (IT-98-33-A) Appeal Chamber, 19 April 2004, §134; in German literature: K. Ambos, 'Immer mehr Fragen im internationalen Strafrecht', 12 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (2001), note 39, at 630ff
68. C. Safferling, 'Wider die Feinde der Humanität- Der Tatbestand des Völkermordes nach der Römischen Konferenz', 8 Juristische Schulung (2001) 735-739, at 738
69. Vest, supra note 37, at 484ff, on the other hand, finds that any degree of direct intent should suffice for all types of offenders, including, in particular, co-offenders and accessories. Knowledge of a particular genocidal intention would then be sufficient for the parties to a criminal pact and for aiders and abetters;
70. in similar terms, see C. Kreß, supra note 36, §§ 78ff.
71. Federal Supreme Court, 37 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2001) 2732-2734.
72. K. Ambos, 'Aktuelle Probleme der deutschen Verfolgung von Kriegsverbrechen in Bosnien-Herzegowina', 5 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (1999) 226-230, at 226ff
73. C. Werle, supra note 12, at 759
74. cf. C. Kreß, 'Friedenssicherungs- und Konfliktvölkerrecht auf der Schwelle zur Postmoderne', Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift (1996) 638-648, at 645.
75. ICTY, Judgement, Tadić (IT-94-1-T), Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999, §§ 146ff and 163ff
76. ICTY Judgement, Delalić et al. (IT-96-21-T), Trial Chamber, 10 November 1998, §211;
77. ICTY Judgement, Aleksovski (IT-95-14/11), Appeals Chamber, 24 March 2000, §§ 147ff.
78. ICTY, Tadić, Appeals Chamber, §227;
79. for an in-depth discussion, see C. Kreß, 'L'organe de facto en droit international public: Réflexions sur l'imputation à l'état de l'acte d'un particulier à la lumière des développements récents, in 103 Révue Générale de Droit International Public (2001) 93ff, especially at 112ff.
80. Judgement of the Federal Supreme Court, BGHSt. 46, 292-310, at 299.
81. Federal Supreme Court, Fn. 46, at 305ff.
82. Federal Constitutional Court, 4th Chamber, 2nd Senate, ruling of 12 December 2000 (2 BvR 1290/99), 25 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (2001), 1848-1853;
83. see also Schabas, supra note 5, at 57.
84. See supra, note 15.
85. Section 1, §93a of the Statute of the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz - BVerfGG) provides that before it can proceed, any Constitutional Complaint ought to be expressly accepted by the Court. A Chamber constituent of three judges taken from the responsible Senate decides by way of preliminary ruling. According to s. 2, §93a BVerfGG, in order to be accepted, the Complaint must either be concerned with fundamental questions of law or necessary to grant effective protection to the complainant's human rights.
86. Approvingly, M. Kotzur, 'Weltrecht ohne Weltstaat: Die nationale (Verfassungs-)Gerichtsbarkeit als Motor völkerrechtlicher Konstitutionalisierungsprozesse?', 3 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (2002) 195-201, at 197, including a commentary on the Constitutional Court's judgment in the case of Nikola Jorgić (2 BvR1290/99) of 12 December 2000;
87. see also S. Kadelbach's commentary on the judgment of the Constitutional Court on 12 December 2000, 2 BvR 1290/99, Juristenzeitung 2001 (19) 981-983.
88. A question that should be distinguished is whether ethnic cleansing per se satisfies one of the modalities constituting the objective elements of the crime, namely to subject a group to living conditions suited towards physically destroying the group, in whole or in part;
89. the ICTY has, in the meantime, denied that question, referring to C. Kreß, in 3 Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (2003) §220a/ §6 VStGB, §57;
90. ICTY, Milomir Stakić (IT-97-24-T), Trial Chamber II, 31 July 2003, §§ 517ff
91. confirmed by the ICTY, Radislav Krstić (IT-98-33-A), Appeals Chamber, 19 April 2004, §33.
92. Kadelbach, supra note 54, at 983.
93. Correctly stated in Kotzur, supra note 54, at 195ff.