Dutch courts' universal jurisdiction over violations of Common Article 3 qua war crimes

Journal of International Criminal Justice

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 362-371

  Mettraux, Guénaël ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744482346     PISSN: 14781387     EISSN: 14781395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mql019     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Dutch War Crimes and Torture Cases concerning Afghanistan, The Hague District Court, 14 October 2005 (decisions not yet reported and can until then be cited as follows: LJN: AU4373, Rechtbank's-Gravenhage, 09/ 751005-04 and LJN: AU4347, Rechtbank's-Gravenhage, 09/750006-05). Both cases can be found online at http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Uitspraken/ Zoekeninuitspraken.htm. Type the case numbers after 'LJN' (AU4373 and AU4347 for the Dutch version of the decisions; AV1163 and AV1489 for the English) and then click at the bottom on 'zoeken'. The two cases were jointly tried but not part of a single indictment. Joint indictments are rare in The Netherlands as they exclude the possibility of using as evidence statements and testimony of the co-accused.
2. The judgments were published on 9 February and 13 February 2005. Apart from the two decisions under review, The Hague District Court also issued a judgment in the van Anraat case on 23 December 2005, where it convicted the accused for complicity in war crimes (this judgment has not yet been translated into English, for comments see H. van der Wilt's article in this same issue). Moreover, a judgment against another Dutch businessman, accused of war crimes in Liberia/Sierra Leone, is expected in the Spring of 2006.
3. Canada's use of immigration procedures to filter out alleged war criminals is another interesting example of the interaction between immigration policies and criminal prosecution (see e.g. J. Rikhof, Report, Canada, 6 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (2003), at 471 et seq).
4. Dutch Supreme Court, 18 September 2001, NJ 2002, at 559.
5. It should be noted that the English translation speaks of torment as a war crime. The Dutch text, however, mentions 'marteling' and 'foltering' which should both be translated into English (in the context of international criminal law) as torture. Under Dutch law, there seems to be a distinction between torture in the sense of the Convention Against Torture ('foltering') and torture as a war crime or crime against humanity ('marteling'). We may refer to Art. 1 of the International Crimes Act (entered into force 1 October 2003). Article 1(d) and (e) stipulateH: (d) marteling: het opzettelijk veroorzaken van ernstige pijn of ernstig lijden, hetzij lichamelijk, hetzij geestelijk, bij een persoon die zich in yevangenschap of in de macht bevindt van degene die beschuldigd wordt, met dien verstande dat onder marteling met wordt verstaan pijn of lijden dat louter het gevolg is van, inherent is aan of samenhangt met rechtmatige sancties; (e) foltering: Marteling van een persoon met het oogmerk om van hem of van een derde inlichtingen of een bekentenis te verkrijgen, hem te bestraffen voor een handeling die hij of een derde heeft begaan of waarvan hij of een derde wordt verdacht, of hem of een derde vrees aan te jagen of te dwingen iets te doen of te dulden, dan wel om enigerlei reden gebaseerd op discriminatie uit welke grond dan ook, van overheidswege gepleegd. Thus, it can be said that 'foltering' carries the additional intent of obtaining confession, inflicting punishment, terrorizing or discriminatory intent, whereas 'marteling' is limited to the intent of inflicting serious bodily or mental harm. (The author thanks Prof. G. Sluiter for providing clarification and information on this point.)
6. See S. Trechsel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), at 349.
7. See also Serves v. France, Judgment of 20 October 1997, 28 EHRR 265, § 42.
8. Article 8 provides as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
9. That published on 9 February (at 8-9).
10. 'Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article'. In fact the Court omitted to mention Art. 50(3) of the Second Geneva Convention (on the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea).
11. In the same decision, the Court noted in passing that the 'standards laid down in the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the common Article [3] included therein, are regarded as generally applicable law' (at 33).
12. See e.g. Fourth Report drawn up by the Special Committee of the Joint Committee, 12 July 1949, Final Record of Diplomatic Conference II, Section B, at 115.
13. ICJ, judgment of 27 June 1986, in I.C.J. Reports 1986, at 114, §218.
14. See G. Mettraux, International Crimes and the Ad Hoc Tribunals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), at 132-134.
15. Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, at 84.
16. See, Mettraux, International Crimes, supra note 13, at 134-138 and references cited therein.
17. In one of these two cases, the Court found that the accused had had actual and direct control over interrogators and that he had been heard giving orders to torture. In those circumstances, the Court said that the accused 'could and should have distanced himself from the torture of [the victim] by not arresting him, at least by not transferring him to the Civil Khad [where torture was rife and took place in this instance]'. Having done so anyway, the Court added, the accused 'could and should have prevented this torture, at least end it by exerting his (actual) power as vice minister of state security over the interrogators'. That, however, he failed to do, and was convicted as a result.
18. The Court also relied upon domestic law - and not international law - in regard to forms of liability. It said, for instance, that the penalization of complicity to torture pursuant to Dutch law arose in this instance from Art. 91 of The Netherlands Criminal Code.
19. See e.g. Judgment, Kunarac et al. (IT- 96-23 and IT-96-23/1-A), 12 June 2002, §§ 134 et seq.
20. See e.g. Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 100, 2005 SCC 40 (before the Canadian Supreme Court).
21. For a comment, see J. Rikhof, 'Hate speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada', 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2005), 1121-1133.