Universal criminal jurisdiction: The Belgian state of affairs

Criminal Law Forum

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 183-216

  Reydams, Luc ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52849091245     PISSN: 10468374     EISSN: 15729850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009473216981     Document Type: Article

References (171)

1. Foreigner or alien in this article means a person who is not a national or citizen of the forum state.
2. The terms "national", "domestic" and "municipal" law are interchangeable in this article.
3. Kenneth Randall, Universal Jurisdiction Under International Law, 66 Texas Law Review 841 (1988).
4. For a compilation and summary of these cases, see Redress, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe. Criminal prosecutions in Europe since 1990 for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and genocide (1999), available at 〈http://www.redress.org〉.
5. In some legal systems, including Belgium, investigative and prosecutorial authorities are part of the judiciary sensu lato, in others they fall under the executive branch of government.
6. See the seminal study of Harvard Research in International Law, Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime, 29 Am. J. Int'l L. 435 (Supp. 1935).
7. In the administration of criminal law, jurisdiction and choice of law are merged.
8. Iain Cameron, The Protective Principle of International Criminal Jurisdiction 19 (1994).
9. G.A.M. Strijards, Internationaal strafrecht. Strafmachtsrecht 35-41 (1984). He observes that "principle" in academic writing on state jurisdiction has five very different meanings. Furthermore, he points out that when one particular meaning is used, the other meanings always remain on the background and tend to "revive", which leads to contradiction and ambiguity. Brownlie has remarked that the "principles" are in substance no more than generalizations of a mass of national provisions.
10. See Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 306 (1990). Mendelssohn-Bartholdy considered the "linking point" doctrine solely as a scientific device for the classification of offences specified in positive law.
11. (Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und ausländischen Strafrechts, Allg. Teil, VI 112 (1908)
12. (cited in Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann, 36 Int'l L. Rep. 5 (1968), at para. 32.
13. Commentators and learned bodies seldom agree on a definition of the universality principle, except that it is the basis for some form of "ultimate", "fallback" or "last resort" jurisdiction to prevent impunity. The following example will suffice. The explanatory memorandum to the Draft European Convention on Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters defines the universality principle as: "The principle whereby the court of the place in which the offender is located (judex deprehensionis) is competent to hear the case, irrespective of the place of commission and of the nationality of the offender or his victim. The principle arose from a need to ensure the safety of certain basic values in which every State has an equal concern. These are either fundamental values such as life, sexual morality, family morality or property, which are protected by all penal codes or interests protected by international conventions and jus gentium". See Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, Report on the settlement of jurisdiction in criminal matters (1965). According to Randall (supra note 3 at 788), "the universality principle [p]rovides every state with jurisdiction over a limited category of offences generally recognized as of universal concern, regardless of the situs of the offence and the nationalities of the offender and the offended." Randall's definition is both broader and narrower than definition of the Draft European Convention. Broader because any state may invoke it, not just the state where the offender can be found. Narrower because it is limited to the category of "universal offences".
14. e Congrès international de droit comparé 511 (1966);
15. Christine Van den Wyngaert, De toepassing van de strafwet in de ruimte, in Liber Amicorum Frédéric Dumon 501 (1983);
16. Françoise Thomas, De internationale gelding van de strafwet in de ruimte, in Actuele Problemen van strafrecht (Alain De Nauw et al. eds., 1988) 195;
17. Henri-D. Bosly and Damien Vandermeersch, Droit de procédure pénale 53-67 (1999).
18. Article 3: "L'infraction commise sur le territoire du royaume, par des Belges ou par des étrangers, est punie conformément aux dispositions des lois belges".
19. Article 4: "L'infraction commise hors du territoire du royaume, par des Belges ou par des étrangers, n'est punie, en Belgique, que dans les cas déterminés par la loi".
20. Preliminary Title of the Code of Penal Procedure (PT). The title of Chapter II, PT is: Prosecution of felonies and misdemeanors committed outside the Kingdom.
21. For an excellent inventory of statutes and code provisions containing the active personality principle and an attempt to categorize them, see Tom Vander Beken, Forumkeuze in het internationaal strafrecht. Verdeling van misdrijven met aanknopingspunten in meerdere staten 82-93 (1999).
22. Before 1984, there were only two very limited manifestations of the passive personality principle. The introduction of a general passive personality clause is the result of the Manzikala case. Manzikala, a national of Zaire, was allegedly responsible for atrocities against Belgians in Zaire in the 1960s. When in 1982 he resided in a luxury hotel in Brussels, relatives of the Belgian victims filed a criminal complaint against him. They were, however, confronted with a vexing gap in Belgian jurisdiction rules. With the adoption of article 10(5) the Belgian legislature decided to close that loophole for the future. See Vander Beken, supra note 15 at 112-115.
23. It should be mentioned that the principle of discretionary prosecution always applies in Belgium, but see infra note 37.
24. er - Vol. I, 213 (1946). See also Van den Wyngaert, supra note 11 at 508.
25. The term "international crimes" is used here as an umbrella term for various expressions used in legal doctrine and instruments: Les crimes internationaux et le droit pénal interne, Actes du Colloque Préparatoire (Association internationale de droit pénal) (Hammamet, 1987), Rev. Int'le Dt Pénal 19-112 (1989).
26. On this point I take Van den Wyngaert's analysis a step further. See Christine Van den Wyngaert, Les crimes internationaux et le droit pénal interne. Belgium. National Report, Rev. Int'le Dt Pénal 155 (1989).
27. Rev. Int'le Dt Pénal 155 (1989). Ibid.
28. Article 8(I)(5) of the Danish criminal code provides: "Under Danish criminal jurisdiction shall also come acts committed outside the territory of the Danish State, irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator where the act is covered by an international agreement, according to which Denmark has an obligation to bring legal proceedings." Translation taken from the Danish reply to the questionnaire of the European Committee on Crime Problems (Council of Europe), Extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction (1990).
29. Van den Wyngaert has suggested the introduction of such a clause in the Penal Code or the Code of Penal Procedure. See Van den Wyngaert, supra note 11 at 522.
30. Article 10(3) implements the 1929 International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency.
31. See references in Vander Beken, supra note 15 at 162.
32. Proposition de loi insérant un article 10quater dans le titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale, en vue de l'incrimination universelle de certaines violations des droits sociaux fondamentaux, Chambre des Représentants de Belgique 1997-1998, 1339/1. The bill was reintroduced on Dec. 9, 1999 as "proposition de loi insérant un article 10quinquies dans le titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale, en vue de l'incrimination universelle de certaines violations des droits sociaux fondamentaux", Chambre des Représentants de Belgique 1999-2000, 0315/001. The text of the bills is available at 〈http://www.laChambre.be〉.
33. Proposition de loi modifiant la loi du 5 août 1991 relative à l'importation, à l'exportation et au transit d'armes, de munitions et de matériel devant servir spécialement à un usage militaire et de la technologie y afférente, Chambre des Représentants de Belgique 1997-1998, 1520/1, available at 〈http://www.laChambre.be〉.
34. A third recent law deserves brief mention. The anti-corruption law of 1999 endows Belgian courts with extraterritorial jurisdiction over corruption by whomever of an official of a foreign state or an international governmental organization if the offender is found in Belgium and if the Belgian authorities have received an official complaint (avis officiel) from the authorities of the state or organization in question. If the corruption involves an official of the European Union a complaint is not required. The law introduces article 10quater in the Preliminary Title. See Loi du 10 février 1999 relative à la répression de la corruption, Moniteur Belge, Mar. 23, 1999, available at 〈http://staatsblad.fgov.be/〉.
35. Loi du 16 juin 1993 relative à la répression des infractions graves aux Conventions internationales de Genève du 12 août 1949 et aux Protocols I et II du 8 juin 1977, additionnels à ces Conventions, Moniteur Belge Aug. 5, 1993.
36. For a detailed commentary on this law see André Andries, Eric David, Christine Van den Wyngaert, and Joe Verhaegen, Commentaire de la loi du 16 juin 1993 relative à la répression des infractions graves au droit humanitaire, Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie 1114-1184 (1994).
37. Loi relative à la répression des violations graves du droit international humanitaire, Moniteur Belge Mar. 23, 1999, available at 〈http://staatsblad.fgov.be/〉. English translation reprinted in 38 I.L.M. 918 with introductory note by Stefaan Smis and Kim Vander Borght.
38. The Act's definition of genocide is verbatim taken from the Genocide Convention.
39. The Act's definition of crimes against humanity is verbatim taken from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. See infra note 38.
40. Ordinarily the civilian courts are competent, but when Belgium is in a state of war military courts have jurisdiction (art. 9(1)).
41. Andries, David, Van den Wyngaert, and Verhaegen, supra note 29 at 1173. On the interpretation of the expression "found in Belgium" (trouvé en Belgique) in Belgian criminal statutes see Les Novelles, supra note 11 at 219-221.
42. Belgian law, like French law, allows trials in absentia under certain conditions. It should, however, be noted that a conviction in absentia is not necessarily final. The default judgment will be set aside and a new trial will follow if the convict appeals upon arrest. With regard to France, the Astiz case (1990) deserves to be mentioned. The Cour d 'assises of Paris convicted in absentia a member of the Argentinean military for the kidnapping and torture of two French nuns (passive personality jurisdiction). See Vander Beken, supra note 15 at 119.
43. Articles 49, 50, 129, and 146 of respectively the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forced in the Field, the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
44. e Congrès de l'Association internationale de droit pénal (Vienna, 1989), 328. One of the characteristics of the Belgian rules of criminal procedure is the active role an injured party can play at the initial stage of the criminal procedure. Victim and public prosecutor have a parallel right to initiate a criminal investigation. Traditionally, a victim has two options to obtain reparation. First, the victim can await the initiative of the public prosecutor or file a complaint with him or her. In both cases, the principle of prosecutorial discretion applies. If it comes to a criminal trial, the victim can join the criminal proceedings. Then, the court which tries the accused is also competent to adjudicate the civil claim. The victim can also await the outcome of the criminal trial and subsequently sue the convicted offender before a civil court. Second, if the public prosecutor is unwilling to initiate criminal proceedings, the victim can overcome this inertia by filing a criminal complaint with an investigating magistrate (juge d'instruction) who is then bound to start a criminal investigation if the magistrate establishes the existence of jurisdiction. This second option allows the victim, at least in theory, to circumvent the principle of prosecutorial discretion, which is important precisely in cases of extraterritorial crimes where the public prosecutor might hesitate to follow up on a complaint for reasons of political expediency. However, investigation of (international) crimes committed abroad requires extraordinary resources, e.g., investigators, translators and a budget for rogatory missions. What and how many resources will be made available to the investigating magistrate is very much a discretionary decision by the public prosecutor. Consequently, without meaningful support of the office of the prosecutor, the magistrate's investigation will be futile. A court will ultimately determine whether the results of the investigation contain enough grounds to warrant a trial. But caveat: a partie civile who initiates a criminal investigation must bear all costs if the pre-trial chamber decides there are no grounds for a trial or if the trial results in an acquittal.
45. On the mechanism of constitution de partie civile in Belgian law, see Raoul Declercq, Les rapports entre l'organisation judiciaire et la procédure pénale en Belgique, Rev. Int'le Dt Pénal 699 (1989).
46. On the legal position in Belgian law of victims of offences with an international element, see Gert Vermeulen, Tom Vander Beken, Patrick Zanders, and Brice De Ruyver, Internationale Samenwerking in Strafzaken en Rechtsbescherming. Pleidooi voor een geïntegreerde nationale en internationale benadering, Chapter 11 (1995).
47. On the adjudication in Belgium of the civil claim arising from an extraterritorial offence, see Françoise Thomas, De burgerlijke vordering wegens misdrijven met een buitenlands element, Tijdschrift voor Privaat Recht 13 (1982).
48. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 183/9*. Belgium voted for the Statute at the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries.
49. Recently the Swiss Federal Council announced that it will ratify the Genocide Convention and that the implementing legislation, like the Belgian law, will make genocide an offence under municipal law over which national courts have universal jurisdiction. See Message du 31 mars 1999 relatif à la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide, et révision correspondante du droit pénal, Feuille Fédérale 1999, 4911-4936. Canadian draft legislation designed to implement the ICC Statute also provides for universal jurisdiction over the three crimes listed in the ICC Statute: Bill C-19, "An Act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts" (House of Commons of Canada, First reading, Dec. 10, 1999, available at 〈http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/ bills/government/C-19/ C-19_1_cover-E.html.〉).
50. See Rüdiger Wolfrum, The Decentralized Prosecution of International Offences Through National Courts, 24 Israel Y.B. Hum. Rts 183 (1995);
51. Christine Van den Wijngaert, The Political Offense Exception to Extradition 218 (1980);
52. Lech Gardocki, Les crimes internationaux et le droit pénal interne, Rev. Int'le Dt Pénal 91 (1989);
53. Bassiouni speaks about direct and indirect enforcement, see M. Cherif Bassiouni, An appraisal of the growth and developing trends of international criminal law, Rev. Int'le Dt Pénal 429 (1974)
54. and M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Penal Characteristics of Conventional International Criminal Law, 15 Case Western Reserve J. Int'l L. 27 (1983).
55. See e.g., Stefan Glaser, Infraction internationale. Ses éléments constitutifs et ses aspects juridiques 31 (1957): "International crimes are subject to the system of universal repression or universal jurisdiction as long as there is no international criminal court".
56. See also Yoram Dinstein, International Criminal Law, 20 Israel L. Rev. 227 (1985).
57. See e.g., Bernhard Graefrath, Universal Criminal Jurisdiction and an International Criminal Court, 1 European J. Int'l L. 67 (1990). The International Law Commission has also taken the view that the effective implementation of the Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind requires a combined approach of universal jurisdiction by states and the jurisdiction of an international criminal court.
58. See the commentary to article 8 of the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, Report of the International Law Commission on its Forty-eighth Session, UN Doc. A/51/10 (1996). Moreover, under article 9 of the Draft Code, the state in whose territory an alleged offender is present would be obliged to try or extradite him or her. The commentary states that in the absence of a request for extradition, the custodial state would have no choice but to submit the case to its national authorities for prosecution. Article 1 of the ICC Statute (see supra note 38), which vaguely states that the Court's jurisdiction "shall be complementary to national jurisdictions", does not seem to exclude universal jurisdiction.
59. One will, however, notice that the ICC Statute does not contain the standard reservation ("[t]his convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law") found in most multilateral conventions regarding the repression of crimes. The absence of such a clause could be interpreted as a renunciation by states parties vis-à-vis other states parties of any claim of universal jurisdiction under internal law over the crimes falling under the competence of the ICC. Regarding Belgium, the Rapport de la Commission de la Justice of the Senate of Dec. 1, 1998 (1-749/3) (available at 〈http://www.senate.be〉) observes that the ICC has subsidiary jurisdiction vis-à-vis municipal courts. As a matter of fact, the official justification for the Act is the "adaptation of [Belgian] positive law to the latest developments in international criminal law, in particular the adoption on July 17, 1998 of the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court, signed by Belgium on September 10, 1998". This can be compared with the two French laws governing the collaboration with the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR). The laws provide for jurisdiction over all offences falling within the competence ratione materiae, loci and temporis of both tribunals, if the perpetrators "are found in France". See common article 2 of Loi no. 95-1 du 2 janvier 1995 portant adaptation de la législation française aux dispositions de la résolution 827 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies instituant un tribunal international en vue de juger les personnes présumées responsables de violations graves du droit international humanitaire commises sur le territoire de l'ex-Yougoslavie depuis 1991, Journal Officiel Jan. 3, 1995, and Loi no. 96-432 du 22 mai 1996 portant adaptation de la législation française aux dispositions de la résolution 955 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies instituant un tribunal international en vue de juger les personnes présumées responsables d'actes de génocide ou d'autres violations graves du droit international humanitaire commis en 1994 sur le territoire du Rwanda et, s'agissant des citoyens rwandais, sur le territoire d'Etats voisins, Journal Officiel May 23, 1996. According to a circular of the French ministry of justice "the establishment of universal jurisdiction, which is not required by the U.N. Security Council Resolution, is an important new development which expresses the willingness of France to collaborate as efficiently as possible in the prosecution of such crimes".
60. See Circulaire du 10 février 1995 commentant la loi no. 95-1 du 2 janvier 1995, Journal Officiel Feb. 21, 1995,
61. and Circulaire du 22 juillet 1996 prise pour l'application de la loi no. 96-432 du 22 mai 1996. See also the Canadian draft legislation supra note 39.
62. See infra note 46.
63. Prosecutor v. Akayesu (Case no. ICTR-96-4-T), Judgment, Sept. 2, 1998, (1998) 37 I.L.M. 1399, summarized in 93 Am. J. Int'l L. 195 (1999) (case note by Diane Marie Amann).
64. See infra.
65. R. v. Evans; R. v. Bartle and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, [1998] 4 All E.R. (D) 509 (Q.B.D.), 37 I.L.M. 1302; R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, [1998] 4 All E.R. 897, [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1456 (H.L.); R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty International and others intervening) (No. 2), [1999] 1 All E.R. 577 (H.L.); [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1456 (H.L.); R. v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty International and others intervening) (No. 3), [1999] 2 All E.R. 97, [1999] 2 W.L.R. 825, 38 I.L.M. 581 (H.L.). The latter judgment is summarized in 93 Am. J. Int'l L. 703 (1999) (case note by Christine Chinkin).
66. Article 5(3) of the Act. In fairness, it has to be mentioned that the Belgian minister of justice has denied any link between this clause and the Pinochet case. The minister contends that the clause is inspired by article 27 of the ICC Statute. See parliamentary records supra note 43.
67. The war crime counts were brought under common article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and under Additional Protocol II.
68. See Prosecutor v. Akayesu, supra note 45, at paras. 642-644.
69. See infra.
70. The parliamentary records make clear the drafters' intent that the Act also apply to acts of genocide and crimes against humanity committed before its adoption, "because crimes against humanity and genocide were already crimes under customary and conventional international law" and "another interpretation would be contrary to the ratio legis of the present bill". The drafters unmistakably had the Rwanda situation in mind: "We have to assure that justice is done in the Rwandan genocide. [. . .] Many Rwandan génocidaires have arrived in Belgium by roundabout routes over Benin and Congo. Everybody knows that networks exist. Although this is another problem, it is necessary to recall the circumstances in which the bill originated. [. . .] This bill will enable Belgian courts to prosecute the [Rwandan] génocidaires more efficiently". See parliamentary records supra note 43. With respect to retroactivity, the Act can be compared with the French laws governing cooperation with the International Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (see supra note 43), with the Australian War Crimes Amendment Act 1988 (No. 3 of 1989), with the Canadian Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, enacted as S.C. 1987, c. 37 with the Canadian draft legislation mentioned supra in note 39, and with the British War Crimes Act 1991.
71. There is no specialized international convention on crimes against humanity. See M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes against Humanity: the Need for a Specialized Convention, 31 Columbia J. Trans'l L. 457 (1994).
72. Article V of the Genocide Convention obliges state parties to enact the necessary legislation to provide for effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide. The Convention became binding upon Belgium in 1952 (Moniteur Belge, Jan. 11, 1952).
73. Article VI of the Genocide Convention states: "Persons charged with genocide or any of the acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the state in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction".
74. The Swiss Federal Council, on the other hand, justifies the proposed universal jurisdiction over genocide as follows: "Because of the imperative character (jus cogens) of the prohibition on genocide, and because of its effect erga omnes, genocide is today undoubtedly subject to universal jurisdiction. By virtue of the universality principle, states may - and even must - prosecute or extradite foreign nationals or their own citizens for acts of genocide, wherever committed. [Universal jurisdiction over genocide] cannot be considered an illegal interference in the domestic affairs of another state". See supra note 39 at 4925-4926.
75. A proponent of that view is Randall, supra note 3 at 834-837. Yet, it has to be observed that this view is based more on the naturalistic assumption that "universal offences" are subject to universal jurisdiction than on state practice. As a matter of fact, except for a few obiter dicta paying lip service to it, case law until recently contained extremely little to support such a theory. Zoller rejects the equation international crimes = universal jurisdiction, and argues that the Genocide Convention rules it out. See Elisabeth Zoller, Territorial effect of the norm of responsibility, in The Nuremberg Trial and International Law (George Ginsburgs and V.N. Kudriavtsev eds., 1990) 106-111. "Hardline" positivist Rubin, taking "a long-range historical approach to the evolution of doctrine and its relation to reality", vigorously contests the "conventional wisdom" that universal crimes have as their inevitable corollary universal jurisdiction because "it does not reflect the practice of states or the distribution of authority that has characterized the international legal order for some 350 years".
76. See Alfred Rubin, Ethics and Authority in International Law xiv, xv (1997). However, "enlighted" positivists such as Simma and Paulus recognize that "the non-application to internal conflicts of the bulk of humanitarian law is gradually giving way to the establishment of universal criminal jurisdiction of both international and domestic tribunals in any kind of conflict".
77. See Bruno Simma and Andreas Paulus, The Responsibility of Individuals for Human Rights Abuses in Internal Conflicts: A Positivist View, 93 AM. J. INT'L LAW 316 (1999).
78. Other countries include Canada (see supra note 39), Ethiopia, Finland, France (only in respect of acts of genocide committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 and Rwanda in 1994, see supra note 43), Germany, Israel ("crimes against the Jewish people"), Nicaragua, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland (see supra notes 39 and 56).
79. The term is borrowed from the title of Professor Theodore Meron's seminal article The International Criminalization of Internal Atrocities, 89 Am. J. Int'l L. 554 (1994).
80. The ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Prosecutor v. Tadic (Case no. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Oct. 2, 1995, (1997) 105 I.L.R. 453, 35 I.L.M. 32, para. 132, and the ICTR in Prosecutor v. Akayesu, supra note 45, paras. 601-617, have held that some violations of common article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions, which provides minimum protection to victims of an armed conflict not of an international character, as well as some violations of Additional Protocol II, are crimes under customary international law which entail individual criminal responsibility.
81. According to the parliamentary records (supra note 43), the question of actual implementation was not given a thought. However, plans are being made now within the ministry of justice to provide judges and prosecutors with training. Compare with the creation of "war crimes units" in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom to implement the laws mentioned supra in note 52. Compare also with the announcement of the Swiss Federal Council that takes the possible budgetary impact of universal jurisdiction over genocide into account (supra note 39 at 4935).
82. The timing of the law presents a bitter irony. A year after its adoption, Belgium was rocked by the Dutroux affair, a case of confinement, prolonged sexual abuse, and murder of several children who had been kidnapped in the years before. The parliamentary commission of inquiry into the justice department's handling of the case revealed serious individual failures, incompetence, and structural problems. The case, which has no international or extraterritorial element, has yet to be tried.
83. Loi contenant des dispositions en vue de la répression de la traite des êtres humains et de pornographie enfantine, Moniteur Belge Apr. 25, 1995. For an analysis and comment, see O. Vandemeulebroecke and F. Gazan, Traite des êtres humains - exploitation et abus sexuels. Les nouvelles lois des 27 mars et 13 avril 1995, Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie 973 (1995) and Vander Beken, supra note 15 at 159-161.
84. This law is also called the "Alien Act".
85. As regards the prosecution of Belgian citizens under the law, article 10ter Preliminary Title overlaps to some degree with article 7(1) Preliminary Title which contains a general active personality clause.
86. Trade in humans, especially in women and children, is the subject of several international conventions. For a list of these treaties and their penal and jurisdictional provisions, see M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Criminal Law Conventions and Their Penal Provisions 683-710 (1997).
87. International traffic in obscene materials is also the subject of several international conventions. For a list of these treaties and their penal and jurisdictional provisions, see ibid, at 1145-1168.
88. The German legislature has made the prosecution of child sex tourism possible by the Act of July 23, 1993. See Günter Bertram, Sextourismus und Strafverfolgung, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 436 (1996). Even states which traditionally adhere to the principle of strict territoriality of penal law, like the United States and the United Kingdom, have extended their courts' jurisdiction to sexual abuse of minors abroad. See infra note 69.
89. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 103-322 (1994), codified at 18 U.S.C. §2423.
90. See Vandemeulebroecke and Gazan, supra note 63 at 1064-1066. Both authors also argue that the double criminality requirement of article 7(1) also applies to extraterritorial offences by Belgians under article 10ter.
91. The Belgian approach follows to some degree the distinction made by Brownlie between the "universality principle" and "crimes under international law". The universality principle, according to Brownlie, is a principle which can be found in the codes of mainly continental European countries allowing jurisdiction, usually with limitations, over certain serious common crimes committed abroad by non-nationals. Crimes under international law, on the other hand "may be punished by any state which obtains custody of persons suspected of responsibility. This is often expressed as an acceptance of the principle of universality, but this is not strictly correct, since what is punished is the breach of international law; and the case is thus different from the punishment, under national law, of acts in respect of which international law gives liberty to all states to punish, but does not itself declare criminal". See Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 304-305 (1990).
92. It is important to remember that the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 978 (1995) had urged States "[t]o arrest and detain, in accordance with their national law and relevant standards of international law, pending prosecution by the International Tribunal for Rwanda or by the appropriate national authorities, persons found within their territory against whom there is sufficient evidence that they were responsible for acts within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for Rwanda" (italics added).
93. It should be mentioned that a deputy-prosecutor was appointed in Belgium to investigate allegations against citizens from the former Yugoslavia.
94. See Prosecutor v. Akayesu, supra note 45 at para. 108.
95. See infra note 92.
96. Between April 1994 and the end of 1997, 1,730 Rwandans applied for political asylum in Belgium, of whom 979 were granted refugee status (source: Commissariat-Général pour les réfugiés et apatrides - 1997).
97. Noteworthy are a number of German decisions regarding the jurisdiction of German courts over violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia which attach great importance not only to the links between the suspect and Germany but also between the conflict itself and Germany. In the Tadic case the Federal Supreme Court held: "The prosecution of murders in Bosnia-Herzegovina by national courts is part of numerous political, military and humanitarian actions of the international community, including Germany, aimed at countering the expansion and dominance policies in the former Yugoslavia, in particular in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and at protecting the civilian Muslim population from persecution, decimation and deportation. In those circumstances, there can be no question of an unlawful interference in the affairs of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It would be inconceivable that the perpetrator of crimes condemned by the international community comes to Germany and, notwithstanding the jurisdictional bases offered by articles 6(9) and 7, 2(2) of the criminal code, would live freely here or would not be extradited to the state where he committed his crimes". Bundesgerichtshof-Ermittlungsrichter, decision of Feb. 13, 1994 - 1 BGs 100/94, reprinted in 5 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 232 (1994). Similar wording can be found in the Djajic decision (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, May 23, 1997 - 3 St 20/96, reprinted in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 392 (1998)), and in the Jorgic decision (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, decision of Sep. 26, 1997 - 2 StE 8/96, on file with author, and Bundesgerichtshof, decision of Apr. 30, 1999, 3 StR 215/98, reprinted in Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 396 (1999), with a case note by Kai Ambos).
98. All plaintiffs resided in Belgium.
99. Unlike a criminal complaint with an investigating magistrate, a simple complaint with the office of the public prosecutor does not set in motion a criminal investigation (see supra note 37). Complaints were filed in Brussels, Liège and Nivelles (copies of some complaints on file with author).
100. It is important to know that there is no extradition treaty between Belgium and Rwanda and that article 1 of the Belgian Extradition Act of Mar. 15, 1874 provides that a person can only be extradited if there is an extradition treaty with the requesting state. Furthermore, it should be noted that the 1993 Act providing for the punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law does not make exceptions to the general rules on extradition.
101. The basis was article 4 in fine of the Act of 1993 stating that a person who knows about the plan to commit any of the offences under the Act and who has the possibility to prevent or stop their execution but fails to act is criminally responsible.
102. A parliamentary commission of inquiry has all the investigative powers of an investigating magistrate and is required to inform the highest prosecutorial authorities if in the course of an investigation it has found reasonable grounds to believe that criminal offences have been committed. The Rwanda Commission's voluminous final report was made public in December 1997 and is available at 〈http://www.senate.be〉 (document 1-611/7).
103. Certain investigative acts cannot be carried out without an investigating magistrate. Only he or she has the authority to compel witnesses to testify and to issue search, seizure and arrest warrants.
104. See Andries, David, Van den Wyngaert, and Verhaegen, supra note 29 at 1122: "There may be questions of interpretation of the Act. The judicial authorities will use such technical snags as excuses but in reality their abstentionist attitude is determined by psychological barriers to act independently from politico-military considerations of the Nation or from the raison d'État".
105. Reports from the United Nations Commission of Experts, from the Special Rapporteur for Rwanda of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights, and from international non-governmental human rights organizations.
106. The Minister of Justice was questioned in parliament about the presence of suspected refugees in Belgium.
107. See supra note 72.
108. The case of Colonel Marchal, Military Court of Belgium, Jul. 4, 1996 (copy on file with author). The accused was acquitted of all charges. Summarized in 1 Y.B. Int'l Humanitarian L. 413 (1998) (case note by Marc Coggen).
109. An account of their strategies, investigations and results can be found in the Rwanda Commission's final report (see supra note 82 at chapter 3(13.2)). See also Damien Vandermeersch, La répression en droit belge des crimes de droit international, 68 Revue Int'le Dt Pénal 1093 (1997);
110. Luc Reydams, De Belgische wet ter bestraffing van inbreuken op het internationale humanitaire recht: een papieren tijger?, 20 Zoeklicht 4 (1998).
111. In March 1998 they also went on a rogatory mission to Arusha (Tanzania) to interview some persons in pre-trial detention in the ICTR facilities. See the Belgian newspaper Le Soir, Mar. 13, 1998, Rwanda: un juge belge en visite à Arusha.
112. The ICTR later requested Belgium to defer in two of these four cases. After the adoption of a law allowing collaboration with the ICTR, the two suspects were transferred to the detention centre of the ICTR in Arusha.
113. At the request of Belgium, authorities in Cameroon arrested alleged genocide master-mind Colonel Bagosora. A fourth international arrest warrant concerned Georges Ruggiu, a Belgian national who is believed to be behind the Rwandan hate radio RTLM. Ruggiu was arrested in Kenya. In both these cases Belgium had to defer subsequently to the ICTR.
114. One of them is the Rwandan Army Major Bernard Ntuyahaga. His is a bizarre case of forum shopping and concurrent jurisdiction. He was wanted by both the Rwandan and Belgian judicial authorities, but before he could be arrested he turned himself in at the ICTR in Arusha where he was subsequently indicted (Case No. ICTR-98-40-T). The motive behind his "surrender" to the ICTR was most likely his imminent arrest and extradition to Rwanda where he could face the death penalty. In April 1999, however, the Prosecutor of the ICTR dropped the charges against Ntuyahaga and asked the Trial Chamber to order Ntuyahaga's transfer to the authorities of Tanzania with a view to extradition to and prosecution by Belgium. The Trial Chamber, however, ruled it had no authority to order the transfer of an ex-accused and decided, to the great dissatisfaction of Belgium which intervened as an amicus curiae in the case, that Ntuyahaga should be released: Prosecutors. Ntuyahaga (Case no. ICTR-90-40-T), Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion to Withdraw the Indictment, March 18, 1999, 38 I.L.M. 866. Ntuyahaga was then arrested by the Tanzanian authorities at the request of Belgium and Rwanda. Both countries thereupon asked his extradition. Tanzania decided to give priority to the Rwandan request and Ntuyahaga was extradited to the state where he allegedly committed his crimes.
115. In a French case of 1994 (Javor and Others v. X), the decision of an investigating magistrate that the complaint of foreign victims was sufficient to trigger French jurisdiction under the Geneva Conventions was struck down by the Court of Appeals of Paris. See infra notes 110.
116. See supra note 36. See also Rafaëlle Maison, Les premiers cas d'application des dispositions pénales des Conventions de Genève par les jurisdictions internes, 6 European J. Int'l L. 260 (1995). Maison examines whether the "arrest" or the "presence" of a suspect are conditions for the exercise of universal jurisdiction under the Geneva Conventions, and concludes that "the [investigating] magistrate may declare himself competent to start an investigation, without prior arrest of the suspect and even in the absence of any indications of a suspect's presence on the national territory".
117. Respectively the chambre du conseil and the chambre des mises en accusation.
118. See Luc Reydams, supra note 89 at 8; 310 Le journal des Procès 28 (1996).
119. The only available remedy is based on article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees a right to a trial within a reasonable time.
120. See supra note 82 at chapter 4, §17.
121. See the Belgian newspaper De Standaard, series of articles about the stagnation of the proceedings against the Rwandan génocidaires (editions of Aug. 19, 20, 21 and 22, 1997).
122. Hearing before the Rwanda Commission on May 6, 1997 (records of hearings).
123. Legal actions in European countries against Pinochet started in the United Kingdom (1993) and in the Netherlands (1994). Regarding the Netherlands see Menno Kamminga, Pinochet bezoekt Nederland, Nederlands Juristenblad 1211 (1994);
124. Menno Kamminga and Melanie Tijssen, Pinochet, Nederland en het VN-Verdrag tegen foltering, NJCM-Bulletin 986 (1995);
125. Chris Ingelse and Harmen van der Wilt, De Zaak Pinochet, Nederlands Juristenblad 280 (1996).
126. They filed their complaints with the magistrate who investigated the Rwanda cases.
127. The complaints were filed before the amendment of the Act in 1999 (see supra).
128. See supra note 102.
129. In re Pinochet, Spanish National Court, Criminal Division (Plenary Session), Nov. 5, 1998, available at 〈http:www.derechos.org/nizkor/chile/ juicio/audi.html〉, summarized in 93 Am. J. Int'l L. 690 (1999) (case note by Maria del Carmen Márquez Carrasco and Joaquín Alcaide Fernández). For a complete compilation (in German) of all Spanish and British decisions regarding Pinochet - until the Spanish extradition request of Apr. 30, 1999 -
130. see Heiko Ahlbrecht and Kai Ambos (eds.), Der Fall Pinochet(s). Auslieferung wegen staatsverstärkter Kriminalität?, Vol. I (1999).
131. Tribunal of first instance of Brussels (investigating magistrate), Nov. 6, 1998. Reprinted in Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie 278 (1999) with concurring note by J. Burneo Labrin and H.-D. Bosly, and in Journal des Tribunaux 308 (1999) with critical note by Joe Verhoeven.
132. See supra note 47.
133. Under Belgian law an investigating magistrate is obliged to determine prior to performing any acts of investigation whether he or she has jurisdiction over the offences alleged in a complaint. The plaintiff's characterization of the offences is not binding on the magistrate.
134. Javor and Others v. X (the Bosnia case): decision of the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (investigating magistrate), May 6, 1994; decision of the Court of Appeal of Paris, Nov. 24, 1994; decision of the Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, Mar. 26, 1996 (copies on file with author). The latter decision is summarized in 93 Am. J. Int'l L. 525 (1999) (case note by Brigitte Stern).
135. See Maison, supra note 95; Claude Lombois, De la compassion territoriale, Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Pénal Comparé 399 (1995). Munyeshyaka case (the Rwanda case): decision of the Tribunal de grande instance de Privas (investigating magistrate), Jan. 9, 1996; decision of the Court of Appeal of Nimes, Mar. 20, 1996; decision of the Cour de Cassation, Chambre criminelle, Jan. 6, 1998 (copies on file with author).
136. An English translation of the latter decision is published in 1 YB. Int'l Humanitarian L. 589 (1998).
137. The decision is also summarized in 93 Am. J. Int'l L. 525 (1999) (case note by Brigitte Stern).
138. See also Luc Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction over Atrocities in Rwanda: Theory and Practice, 4 Eur. J. Crime, Criminal L. Criminal Justice 18 (1996).
139. Fédération Nationale des Déportés et Internés Résistants et Patriotes and Others v. Barbie, Cour de Cassation, Oct. 6, 1983. English translation published in 78 I.L.R. 125. The passage in question runs as follows: "By reason of their nature, the crimes against humanity with which Klaus Barbie, who claims German nationality, is charged in France where those crimes were committed, do not simply fall within the scope of French municipal law but are subject of an international criminal order to which the notions of frontiers and extradition rules arising therefrom are completely foreign" (italics added).
140. See supra note 52. Subsection 3.71 of the Canadian Criminal Code endows the Canadian courts with extraterritorial jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity, but does not make them domestic offences.
141. See supra note 106 at section II. See also Kai Ambos, Der Fall Pinochet und das anwendbare Recht, Juristenzeitung 16 (1999) (concurring ).
142. On the retroactive application of municipal statutes penalizing "international crimes" see an elaborate note in 87 Columbia L. Rev. 1515 (1987), The Ex Post Facto Prohibition and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes.
143. The magistrate's decision referred to "the general principle of international law aut dedere aut judicare". However, this principle creates only an obligation for the state in whose territory an offender is located. It says nothing about the right of third states.
144. This is also expressed by the Latin adage ubi te invenero, ibi te judicabo ("where I find you, there I will put you on trial") and by the German term "Weltrechts-Ergreifungsprinzip". See Georg Solna, Das Weltrechtsprinzip im internationalen Strafrecht 21 (1925).
145. See also Mikliszanski who says that "the perpetration [of delicta juris gentium] triggers the equal jurisdiction of all states, but the exercise thereof comes to the judge of the place where the offender was arrested" (K. Mikliszanski, Le système de l'universalité du droit de punir et le droit pénal subsidiaire, Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Pénal Comparé 339 (1936)).
146. Lombois writes that "the place of arrest is determinative: the judge of that place will be competent" (Claude Lombois, Droit pénal international para. 26 (1971).
147. See also André Huet and Renée Koering-Joulin, Droit pénal international 226 (1994);
148. Christine van den Wyngaert, Double Criminality as a Requirement to Jurisdiction, in Double Criminality (Nils Jareborg ed., 1989) 47-48. See also supra note 10.
149. Self-generated custody over the offender through abduction, as Israel did in the Eichmann case, is unanimously condemned as illegal under international law.
150. I am translating Oehler who uses in this respect the expression "Weltpolizist". See Dietrich Oehler, Auslieferungsersuchen, Einlieferung und der Geltungsbereich des Strafrechts, in Festschrift der Rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakultät zur 600-Jahr-Feier der Universität zu Köln 499 (1988). Oehler is one of the very few scholars who has reflected upon the relationship between extradition and universal jurisdiction. See ibid, at 497-504.
151. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
152. Demjanjukv. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1985).
153. See case notes in 80 Am. J. Int'l L. 645 (1986) by Monroe Leigh, and in 10 Suffolk Trans'l L. J. 607 (1986) by Suzanne Lutnick. See also Rena Hozore Reiss, The Extradition of John Demjanjuk: War Crimes, Universality Jurisdiction, and the Political Offence Exception, 20 Cornell Int'l L.J. 281 (1987).
154. "The voluntary presence of the suspect on the territory [of the forum state] is a primordial condition. Trying a suspect in absentia or requesting his extradition is out of the question" (italics added). See Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, Les principes modernes du droit pénal international 160 (1928).
155. "Trying an offender on the basis of the universality principle after he has been extradited to the forum state would constitute an abuse of right (Rechtsmißbrauch) . . . A combination of extradition and universal jurisdiction leads to an unlimited competence (Supergeltungsbereich) and unhinges international criminal law as a whole". See supra note 117 at 498. But see also Maison and Stern infra note 127.
156. See infra note 127.
157. See supra. Although article 13 refers only to the situations covered in the preceding articles 6 to 12, a strong argument could be made that it applies to all extraterritorial offences, even if they have not been incorporated in the code of criminal procedure, like e.g., the Act providing for the punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law.
158. The Poblete Cordova case. See the amicus curiae of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, prepared by Kai Ambos (Strafrechtliche Grundlagen einer Strafverfolgung General Pinochets in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wegen an deutschen Staatsangehörigen begangenen Taten, Nov. 1998, available at 〈http:www.iuscrim.mpg.de/info/aktuell〉) .
159. See Kai Ambos et al., Straflosigkeit in Argentinien für während der Militärdiktatur (1976-1983) begangene Taten des " Verschwindenlassens"? Rechtslage für Opfer mit deutscher oder andere Staatsangehörigkeit, 25 Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 468, 475-478 (1998). It may also be observed that the Human Rights Committee has held that article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "does not guarantee non bis in idem with regard to the national jurisdictions of two or more States. The Committee observes that this provision prohibits double jeopardy only with regard to an offence adjudicated in a given State" (A.P. v. Italy, Comm. No. 204/1986, reprinted in Official Records of the Human Rights Committee 1987-1988, Vol. II, 450). One could argue a fortiori that ne bis in idem does not apply after a foreign amnesty by executive decree.
160. Post script: On March 2, 2000 the British Home Secretary announced that the United Kingdom would not extradite Pinochet to Spain or any other country because of the suspect's mental unfitness to stand trial.
161. Agence France Presse, March 5, 2000.
162. e législature, no020, March 17, 2000, p. 9.
163. A recent decision of the German Supreme Court is very relevant in this respect. Article 6 of the German Penal Code enumerates a number of offences against internationally protected interest or rights, including genocide, which are punishable in Germany irrespective of the law of the locus delicti. The presence of the foreign suspect is textually not required. The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the victim alone is not a meaningful point of contact and that universal jurisdiction over a foreign offender who is not present in Germany would violate the non-interference principle of international law. It pointed to the dangers of "an endless and internationally questionable extension of municipal law enforcement" and an "overloading of the German criminal justice system". See Bundesgerichtshof, decision of Dec. 11, 1998 - 2 ARs 499/98, reprinted in 5 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 236 (1999). Ambos, however, contends that there is no international legal argument against such extension in case of crimes under international law. He rejects the view that jurisdiction over crimes under international law would require a meaningful link and suggests that any peaceful action in response to such crimes can not possibly constitute an internationally impermissible interference in the domestic affairs of another state. Furthermore, if a link should be necessary, Ambos argues that the sole presence of the foreign victim in the forum state constitutes a meaningful and sufficient point of contact.
164. See Kai Ambos, case note in 8 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 404 (1999). Maison also argues that the presence of the victims is a sufficient link, at least in respect to jurisdiction over "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. See Maison, supra note 95 at 272-272. Stern goes further and asserts that "the purpose of universal jurisdiction is to require no territorial link whatsoever in order to enable any state to prosecute all crimes against humanity" (italics added).
165. See Brigitte Stern, La compétence universelle en France: le cas des crimes commis en ex-Yougoslavie et Rwanda, in 40 German Y.B. Int'l L. 293 (1997). Both Maison and Stern criticize the decision of the Court of Appeal of Paris in the Bosnia case (see supra note 110) which held that "there must be an objective and material link consisting of the presence of the suspects on French territory".
166. See Christine Van den Wyngaert, supra note 42 at 12.
167. See Christine Van den Wyngaert, Structures et méthodes de la coopération internationale et régionale (à l'exclusion de l'extradition). Rapport belge, 55 Revue Int'le Droit Pénal 97 (1984). She cites Lammasch who called Belgium in 1887 a. "Leitnation" (leading nation) in the development of international criminal law.
168. Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, Les leçons de l'histoire et le progrès du droit pénal international, Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Pénal comparé, 6 (July-Sept. 1951).
169. The only international decision about state criminal jurisdiction is the 1927 case of the S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 10. The judgment is best known for the following passage (at para. 19): "Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that States may not extend the application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts outside their territory, it leaves them in this respect a wide measure of discretion which is only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules". The Supreme Court of Israel in the Eichmann case explicitly endorsed the Lotus rule. See the Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann, Supreme Court of Israel (1962), reprinted in 36 I.L. R. 277 (1968), at para. 9. In State of Israel v. Azza'iza (1970), the Israeli Supreme Court held again that "if the sovereign should wish to extend the scope of his [criminal] laws [to acts performed abroad], there is nothing to prevent him from doing so" (cited in S.Z. Feller, Concurrent Criminal Jurisdiction in the International Sphere, 16 Israel L. Rev. 40, note 9 (1981)). A United States court likewise approved the Lotus rule in the Demjanjuk case (Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk, 612 F.Supp. 544, 555 (D.C. Ohio 1985).
170. See also supra note 35.
171. I am paraphrasing the author of an article in the Neue Züricher Zeitung of Apr. 5, 1994, commenting on the "discovery" of a universal jurisdiction clause in Swiss humanitarian law. (Cited by Jürg van Wijnkoop, Prosecution of presumed war criminals in Switzerland, in Proceedings of the Meeting of Experts on National Repression of Violations of International Humanitarian Law, organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (Geneva, 23-25 Sept. 1997)).