Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:02:45.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE OR PROSECUTE (BELGIUM v SENEGAL) JUDGMENT OF 20 JULY 2012

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2013

Mads Andenas  and
Thomas Weatherall
Mads Andenas
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Oslo, mads.andenas@jus.uio.no.
Thomas Weatherall
Affiliation:
JD Candidate, Georgetown University, tcw34@law.georgetown.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This case1 marks the first pronouncement by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) in international law. It is the second contentious case in which the ICJ has held the defendant country in breach of its obligations under a human rights convention. The ICJ both added to the corpus of norms it has formally recognized as peremptory norms (jus cogens) and also reinforced the principle that former heads of state are subject to universal jurisdiction for grave violations of international law.

Type
Current Developments: Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 753 - 769
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), ICJ Judgment of 20 July 2012 (‘Judgment’).

2 ibid, para 16.

3 ibid.

4 ibid para 19. This was the second case against Habré. In 2000 a group of seven Chadian nationals, alongside an association of victims, filed a civil-party complaint against Habré with the senior investigating judge of the Dakar Tribunal régional hors classe in connection with crimes committed during his presidency and Habré was placed under house arrest. The judgment was annulled on appeal by the Chambre d'accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal for lack of jurisdiction: because the alleged crimes against humanity and torture occurred outside Senegal, and were perpetrated by a foreign national against non-nationals, prosecution would require the exercise of universal jurisdiction, for which there was no basis in the Senegalese Code of Criminal Procedure. See Judgment, paras 17–18.

5 ibid. The ICJ noted that both Belgium and Senegal are members of Interpol.

6 ibid para 22.

7 Notes Verbales of 11 January 2006, 9 March 2006 and 4 May 2006.

8 Note Verbale of 9 May 2006.

9 UN Committee against Torture, Decision of 17 May 2006.

10 Decision 137 (VII) of the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government.

11 Penal Code of Senegal, Articles 431-1 to 431-5. The amended Penal Code provided for retroactive prosecution of these crimes under international criminal law (Article 431-6) and imposed universal jurisdiction over such acts (Article 669). Senegal also amended its Constitution in 2008 to provide an exception to its non-retroactivity principle consistent with this 2007 legislation, with respect to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, following which 14 individuals filed a new complaint with the Public Prosecutor of the Dakar Court of Appeal accusing Habré of acts of torture and crimes against humanity. See Judgment para 31.

12 ibid, para 33.

13 Note Verbale of 8 May 2007, recalling its Note Verbale of 20 June 2006.

14 See by Notes Verbales of 2 December 2008, 23 June 2009, 14 October 2009, 23 February 2010, 28 June 2010, 5 September 2011 and 17 January 2012.

15 See Notes Verbales of 29 July 2009, 14 September 2009, 30 April 2010 and 15 June 2010.

16 Judgment, para 30.

17 See above (n 1).

18 Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), Provisional Measures, Order of 28 May 2009, ICJ Reports 2009, esp 154 (para 68).

19 Judgment, para 33.

20 This was because Senegal had not made a declaration accepting art 34 (para 6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the establishment of an African Court of Human and People's Rights: African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Michelot Yogogombaye v Republic of Senegal, App No 001/2008, Judgment of 15 December 2009.

21 ECOWAS Court of Justice, Hissein Habré v Republic of Senegal, Judgment No ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/10 of 18 November 2010.

22 Judgment, para 35.

23 Notes Verbales of 15 March 2011 and 5 September 2011.

24 Decision of 18 August 2011 by the Chambre d'accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal.

25 Decision of 10 January 2012 by the Chambre d'accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal

26 Communications of 12 January and 24 November 2011.

27 Note Verbale of 17 January 2012.

28 Judgment, para 41.

29 ibid para 75.

30 ibid para 72.

31 ibid paras 54–55. However, given that Belgium's final submission to the Court concerned obligations ‘under other rules of international law’, it is not clear that this was a necessary constraint.

32 ibid paras 47–48.

33 ibid para 76.

34 ibid paras 49–52.

35 ibid para 73.

36 ibid para 73.

37 Torture Convention, Article 30 (para 1).

38 Judgment, para 42.

39 ibid paras 56–63.

40 ibid para 63.

41 ibid para 64.

42 ibid para 65.

43 ibid para 68, citing Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1951, 23.

44 ibid para 68, citing Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, 32, para 33.

45 ibid paras 69–70.

46 ibid paras 79–85.

47 ibid paras 85–89.

48 ibid para 90.

49 ibid para 91.

50 ibid paras 94–95.

51 ibid paras 94–95.

52 ibid para 96.

53 ibid paras 97–98.

54 ibid para 99.

55 ibid para 100.

56 ibid para 102.

57 ibid para 103.

58 ibid para 105.

59 ibid para 117.

60 ibid paras 109–113.

61 ibid paras 114–115.

62 ibid para 121.

63 ‘Senegal Told to Prosecute Ex-President of Chad’, 20 July 2012, New York Times.

64 ECOWAS Court of Justice, Hissein Habré v Republic of Senegal, Judgment No ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/10 of 18 November 2010.

65 See <http://www.seneweb.com/news/Justice/proces-hissene-habre-les-chambres-extraordinaires-africaines-demarrent-leurs-activites-aujourd-rsquo-hui-a-dakar_n_87885.html> accessed 27 February 2013.

66 See <http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/11/qa-case-hiss-ne-habr-extraordinary-african-chambers-senegal#5> accessed 27 February 2013.

67 1155 UNTS 331.

68 Notably that appended by Judge Ammoun to the Barcelona Traction Judgment: Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, Sep. Op. Ammoun, 325 (para 34); see also Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, Sep. Op. Dugard, ICJ Reports 2006, 6, 89 para 10.

69 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2006, 32, 51–52 paras 64 and 125.

70 Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Judgment of 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, 104 and 111 paras 147 and 162.

71 Prosecutor v Furundžija, IT-95-17/1-T paras 153–154.

72 See, for example, Al-Adsani v The United Kingdom, ECtHR, 35763/97, Judgment paras 60–61.

73 See Sep. Op. Abraham (para 27) and Dis. Op. Sur (para 4). Both opinions are better read in French, which is the language of the two judges, than in the translation of individual opinions which is provided by the court service and not endorsed by the judges in the way both the authentic language versions of the ICJ's judgments are.

74 Judgment para 99.

75 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2010, 639, para 87; see M Andenas, ‘International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) Judgment of 30 November 2010’ (2011) 60 ICLQ 810–19 indicating room for ‘further elaboration by the ICJ at some later occasion’ (at 814).

76 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, 3, 32 (paras 33–34); East Timor (Portugal v Australia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1995, 90, 102 (para 29); Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, 136, 172, 199 (paras 88, 155–157); Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2006, 6, 32, 51–52 (paras 64 and 125); Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, 43, 104, 111 (para 147 and 162).

77 Judgment paras 67–70; see Dis. Op. Xue (para 16).

78 [2001] II YILC (Part ii), Article 48:

Article 48. Invocation of responsibility by a State other than an injured State

  1. 1

    1 Any State other than an injured State is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another State in accordance with paragraph 2 if:

    1. (a)

      (a) the obligation breached is owed to a group of States including that State, and is established for the protection of a collective interest of the group; or

    2. (b)

      (b) the obligation breached is owed to the international community as a whole.

79 ibid, Commentary to Article 48.

80 Judgment para 68, citing Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, 32, para 33.

81 ibid, paras 67–70.

82 See Dis. Op. Xue para 12; Dis. Op. J. ad hoc Sur para 28.

83 Sep. Op. Abraham paras 21, 31–32; Dis. Op. J. ad hoc Sur para 28.

84 Filartiga v Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, § 878; Siderman de Blake v Argentina, 965 F 2d 699, ss 714–719; Prosecutor v Furundžija, IT-95-17/1-T (paras 153–154); Prosecutor v Delalić et al, IT-96-21-T (para 454); Regina v Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Urgarte (No 3), House of Lords, 119 ILR 136 (1999), 260 (para 153); Prosecutor v Kunarac et al, Case No IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T (para 466); Al-Adsani v The United Kingdom, ECtHR, 35763/97, Judgment (paras 60–61); Bouzari and Others v Islamic Republic of Iran, Canada, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 128 ILR 586 (2002) (para 94), 243 DLR (4th) 406 s 429; Prosecutor v Milan Simić, IT-95-9/2-S (para 34); Brothers Gomez Paquiyauri v Peru, IACtHR, Judgment of 8 July 2004 (paras 111–112); Tibi v Ecuador, IACtHR, Judgment of 7 September 2004 (para 143); Caesar v Trinidad and Tobago, IACtHR, Judgment of 11 March 2005 (para 100); Baldeón García v Peru, IACtHR, Judgment of 6 April 2006 (para 117); Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS Saudiya (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), Judgment, [2006] UKHL 26 (para 43, per Lord Hoffmann); Demir and Baykara v Turkey, ECtHR, 34503/97, Judgment (para 73); Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, 33 (para 99).

85 ibid, 8 (para 14, footnotes omitted).

86 Sep. Op. Cançado Trindade (para 164).

87 Sep. Op. Cançado Trindade (paras 43, 123).

88 Judgment, para 68.

89 ICJ Reports 1986 para 73.

90 [2001] II YILC (Part ii), art 48.

91 See Sep. Op. Cançado Trindade (para 135).

92 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1 April 2011. See Judgment, para 57.

93 ibid para 157.

94 ibid para 159.

95 Judgment, paras 59 and 61.

96 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ. Reports 2004, 136 where the Court relies on UN human rights treaty bodies and special rapporteurs.

97 Guengueng et al v Senegal, UN Committee against Torture, Decision of 17 May 2006.

98 O.R., M.M. and M.S. v Argentina (Communications Nos 1/1988, 2/1988 and 3/1988, decision of 23 November 1989, para 7.5, Official Documents of the General Assembly, Forty-Fifth Session, Supplement No 44 (UN doc A/45/44, Ann. V, 112) and the 2012 Judgment para 101.

99 Judgment, para 102.

100 ibid para 25.

101 See Dis. Op. J. Ad Hoc Sur para 21.

102 ibid.

103 Judgment, paras 67–70: ‘As a consequence, there is no need for the Court to pronounce on whether Belgium also has a special interest with respect to Senegal's compliance with the relevant provisions of the Convention in the case of Mr Habré’ (emphasis added).

104 See Dec. J. Owada paras 15, 22–23.

105 Judgment, para 14 (emphasis added).

106 ibid para 121.

107 Sep. Op. J. Skotnikov para 8.

108 Grotius, De Jure, II.XXI.III–IV (at IV, para 1). See Z Galicki, Preliminary Report on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (‘aut dedere aut judicare’), A/CN.4/571, 3-4, paras 8–9.

109 A/CN.4/571; A/CN.4/585 and Corr.1; A/CN.4/603; A/CN.4/648.

110 Survey of Multilateral Conventions which may be of Relevance for the Commission's Work on the Topic ‘The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)’, A/CN.4/630.

111 A/CN.4/648, 2 (para 3). The ILC Working Group has acknowledged the need to conduct in-depth analysis of the present Judgment to the obligation to extradite or prosecute: International Law Commission, Report on the work of its sixty-fourth session, Supplement No 10, A/67/10 (para 211).

112 Survey of Multilateral Conventions which may be of Relevance for the Commission's Work on the Topic ‘The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)’, A/CN.4/630, 76 (para 150). In the Fourth Report on the Obligation to Extradite or Punish, the ILC presents four different catalogues of instruments containing the obligation to extradite or punish: A/CN.4/648, 10-16 (paras 44–69).

113 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 860 UNTS 105.

114 [1996] II YILC (Part ii) para 50.

115 [1996] II YILC (Part ii) para 50, art 9.

116 ibid, Commentary to art 9, 31 para 2.

117 See discussion above (n 30) (citing Judgment para 75).

118 ibid, para 6: ‘The custodial State has a choice between two alternative courses of action either of which is intended to result in the prosecution of the alleged offender. The custodial State may fulfill its obligation by granting a request for the extradition of an alleged offender made by any other State or by prosecuting that individual in its national courts. Article 9 does not give priority to either alternative course of action. The custodial State has discretion to decide whether to transfer the individual to another jurisdiction for trial in response to a request received for extradition or to try the alleged offender in its national courts’. However, transfer of an individual to the international criminal court would also satisfy the aut dedere aut judicare obligation: See bid, 32 para 8.

119 Questions Relating to the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (Belgium v Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, 32 para 95.

120 See Sep. Op. Yusuf, paras 19–24.

121 The ILC articulated this premise in Draft Article 4 on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute, which delimits the customary origin of the obligation as arising from peremptory norms (jus cogens): Z Galicki, Fourth Report on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare), A/CN.4/648, 24 para 95. The ILC immediately notes that the catalogue of offences listed in para 2 is not exhaustive and remains open to consideration para 96.

122 Judgment para 121.

123 Judgment para 75.

124 American Law Institute, I Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States s 404: Universal Jurisdiction to Define and Punish Certain Offences, 254 and Comment on 254–255 (para a).

125 Ratner, SR, Abrams, JS and Bischoff, JL, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law (3rd edn, OUP 2009) 140Google Scholar; de Hoogh, A, Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes (Kluwer Law International 1996) 164Google Scholar.

126 See Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, [1996] II YILC (Part ii), Commentary to art 9, 32 (para 7); Z Galicki, Second Report on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare), A/CN.4/585, 10, para 34.

127 Institute of International Law, Resolution of the Seventeenth Commission [Christian Tomuschat, Rapporteur], Universal Criminal Jurisdiction with Regard to the Crime of Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. This conclusion was subsequently endorsed by the special rapporteur of the ILC: Third Report on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare), A/CN.4/603, 11 (para 47).

128 Schabas, WA, ‘International Crimes’ in Armstrong, D (ed), Routledge Handbook of International Law (Routledge 2009) 274Google Scholar. These procedural consequences of international crimes include retroactive prosecution, special powers of courts that would not otherwise exercise jurisdiction, duties upon States to cooperate in various capacities (eg investigation, extradition, prosecution), invalidation of defences enjoyed by regular crimes, compromise of immunity, and negation of statutory limitations.

129 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, 136, where the ICJ relies on UN human rights treaty bodies and special rapporteurs.