Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:54:37.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Court of Justice: Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Cindy Galway Buys
Cindy Galway Buys*
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , August 2012 , pp. 706 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

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

Endnotes

1 This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Court of Justice Web site (visited September 15, 2012) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/144/17064.pdf.

1 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 [hereinafter CAT].

2 Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg, v. Sen.), Judgment (July 20, 2012), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/144/17064.pdf [hereinafter Judgment].

3 Id. ¶ 16.

4 Id. ¶¶ 17, 19, 27.

5 Id. ¶ 18.

6 Id. ¶ 21.

7 Id. ¶ 22.

8 Id. ¶ 23.

9 Id.

10 Id. ¶ 28. Senegal claimed that it lacked financial resources for the prosecution and requested international financial assistance. Negotiations with respect to international financial assistance for the trial of Habré resulted in pledges of $8.6 million. Id. ¶ 33.

11 Id. ¶ 35.

12 Id. ¶ 1.

13 Id. ¶ 19, 65.

14 Id. ¶¶ 42-44.

15 Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.), Counter-Memorial of the Republic of Senegal, 1 135 (Aug. 23, 2011), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/144/16931.pdf.

16 Id. ¶¶ 49, 52. The ICJ also determined that the other conditions for jurisdiction under CAT Article 3 had been met because the dispute had not been settled through negotiations and because Belgium had properly requested arbitration more than six months prior to the institution of proceedings with no response from Senegal. Id. ¶ 63.

17 Jurisdiction under CAT has been claimed before, but never found to be proper. See, e.g., Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, 2006 I.C.J. 6 (Feb. 3).

18 The ICJ’s docket tends to be dominated by territorial disputes rather than human rights cases. See Carter, Barry E., Trimble, Phillip R. & Weiner, Allen S., International Law 335 (5th ed. 2007)Google Scholar. Moreover, even when human rights cases are filed, some are dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. See Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, supra note 17; see also Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Geor. v. Russ.), Judgment Regarding Preliminary Objections (Apr. 1, 2011), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/140/16398.pdf.

19 Judgment, supra note 2, ¶ 64.

20 Id. ¶ 68.

21 Id. ¶ 79, 86. See also CAT, supra note 1, art. 6.

22 Judgment, supra note 2, ¶ 86. Two judges dissented with respect to Senegal’s violations of CAT Articles 6 and 7.

23 CAT, supra note 1, art. 7.

24 Judgment, supra note 2, ¶ 96.

25 Id. ¶ 111.

26 Id. ¶ 112.

27 Id. ¶ 115, 117.

28 Senegal: Agreement on Habré Court, Hum. Rts. Watch (July 24, 2012), http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/24/senegal-agreement-habr-court.