First conviction under the universal jurisdiction provisions of the un convention against torture

Netherlands International Law Review

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 439-449

  Sebastien, N ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009595360     PISSN: 0165070X     EISSN: 17416191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X04004395     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. In order to protect their privacy, in the Netherlands it is customary not to reveal the full names of defendants.
2. Rechtbank Rotterdam, 7 April 2004, LJN-number A07178, available at . An English translation of the judgment provided by the court is appended to this note.
3. Art. 5, Uitvoeringswet folteringsverdrag, 29 September 1988, Stb. 1988, No. 478.
4. Arts. 5–7, UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).
5. Other court cases based on the universal jurisdiction provisions of the UN Convention against Torture are currently pending, inter alia, in France and the United Kingdom. 6. Art. IF, UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) provides in part: The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: (b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee….’
6. L. Maat, 'De verdachte had duidelijk misbruik gemaakt van macht’, interview with Tea Polescuk, prosecutor in charge of the case, Opportuun, magazine of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, vol. 10, issue 9, May 2004, available at .
7. The Netherlands has been a party to the Convention against Torture since 21 December 1988, Congo since 30 July 2003. 9. P.R. Baehr, 'Nederland en de totstandkoming van de VN-conventie tegen martelingen’, Internationale Spectator (1987) p. 551.
8. See M.T. Kamminga and M. Tijssen, 'Pinochet, Nederland en het VN-Verdrag tegen Poke-ring’, NJCM-Bull. (1995) pp. 986 – 995 and C. Ingelse and H. van der Wilt, 'De zaak Pinochet: over universele rechtsmacht en Hollandse benepenheid’, 71 NJB (1996) pp. 280–285.
9. Hof Amsterdam, 4 January 1995, excerpted in 28 NYIL (1997) p. 365.
10. Art. 2(1)(a), Wet internationale misdrijven[International Crimes Law], 19 June 2003, Stb. 2003, No. 220.
11. Hoge Raad, 18 September 2001, NJ 2002, No. 559. See L. Zegveld, 'The Bouterse Case’, 32 NYIL (2001) pp. 97 – 118 and R. van Elst, ‘Universele rechtsmacht over foltering; Bouterse en de decembermoorden’ 27 NJCM-Bull. (2002) pp. 208 – 224. 14. The data presented in this paragraph have been taken from L. Reydams, Universal Juris-diction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2003) pp. 83–219 and the reports of Redress, available at .
12. Compare for example the survey of the domestic implementation of the Convention against Torture in the report by Redress, Reparation for Torture: A Survey of Law and Practice in Thirty Selected Countries, April 2003, pp. 49 – 50, available at , with the database of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the domestic implementation of the Geneva Conventions, available at . 16. TheSaric case in Denmark in 1994, referred to above.
13. M.T. Kamminga, 'Lessons Learned form the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Gross Human Rights Offenses’, HRQ (2001) pp. 940–974.
14. A. Beijer, et al., Opsporing van oorlogsmisdrijven. Evaluatie van het Nationaal Opspo-ringsteam voor Oorlogsmisdrijven: 1998–2001 (Deventer, Kluwer 2002) p. 67.
15. See, for example, S. Ratner, 'Belgium’s War Crimes Statute: A Postmortem’, AJIL (2003) pp. 888–897.
16. Belgian law on grave breaches of international humanitarian law, as amended on 5 August 2003, 42 ILM (2003) p. 1258.