Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T20:59:05.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. IMMUNITY OF STATE OFFICIALS FROM THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF A FOREIGN STATE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2013

Andrew Sanger
Andrew Sanger*
Affiliation:
Doctoral Candidate, University of Cambridge, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Khurts Bat, the English High Court held that Mr Bat, a Mongolian State official charged with committing municipal crimes on German territory, was not immune from the jurisdiction of German courts and could therefore be extradited to Germany. This article examines the three theories of immunity put forward in that case: (1) special missions immunity, (2) high-ranking official immunity, and (3) State immunity. It focuses on the question of whether State officials charged with municipal crimes may plead immunity ratione materiae from the criminal jurisdiction of a foreign State by examining key examples of State practice.

Keywords

immunitypersonal immunityspecial missionsState immunity
Type
Current Developments: Public International Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 193 - 224
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 Khurts Bat v Investigating Judge of the Federal Court of Germany [2011] EWHC 2029 (Admin) [2012] 3 WLR 180 (Khurts Bat).

2 G Bönisch and S Röbel, ‘Release of Alleged Spy Angers German Investigators’ (Spiegel Online, 12 October 2011) <http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mongolian-murder-mystery-release-of-alleged-spy-angers-german-investigators-a-791009.html>.

3 Both charges are framework offences.

4 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 21.

5 ibid.

6 ibid para 20.

7 Federal Court of Justice, Germany v Bat Khurts (District Court, 18 February 2011), paras 11 and 12.

8 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 1.

9 ibid para 101.

10 UN Convention on Special Missions Convention on Special Missions (adopted 16 December 1969, entered into force 21 June 1985) 1400 UNTS 231. As of September 2012, there are 38 State parties to the Convention.

11 In March 2011, an ex parte application was made for the arrest of the former president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, for alleged involvement in torture. The application was rejected on the basis that he was on a special mission, although the court did not make a detailed examination of special missions immunity (Decision Concerning the Request for an Arrest Warrant for Mikhail Gorbachev (Westminster Magistrates’ Court, 30 March 2011)).

12 Customary special missions immunity has been recognized by a number of national courts, including English District Courts (Re Bo Xilai 128 ILR 713; Re Ehud Barak (District Court, 29 September 2009)), in the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Re: Gorbachev (Westminster Magistrates’ Court, 30 March 2011) and the Criminal Chamber of the German Federal Supreme Court (Tabatabai, 80 ILR 388). For academic opinion: Akande, D and Shah, S, ‘Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts’ (2011) 21 EJIL 821–3Google Scholar; Paszkowski, M, ‘The Law on Special Missions’ (1974) 6 PolishYIL 267–88Google Scholar; Wickremasinghe, C, ‘Immunities Enjoyed by Officials of States and International Organizations’ in Evans, M (ed), International Law (OUP 2010) 390–2Google Scholar; Watts, A, ‘The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of States, Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers’ (1994-III) 247 Recueil des Cours 13, 40Google Scholar; Watts, A, The International Law Commission 1949–1998, (OUP 1999), vol 1, 344–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For doubt over whether there is a customary special missions immunity, see USA v Sissoko (SD Fla, 1997), 121 ILR 599.

13 80 ILR 389.

14 127 ILR 88.

15 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 26.

16 ibid para 29.

17 ibid.

18 ibid para 37.

19 ibid paras 37–40.

20 ibid para 40.

21 C Milmo, ‘Mongolia declares diplomatic war on Britain over arrested spy’ (The Independent, 8 January 2011) <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mongolia-declares-diplomatic-war-on-britain-over-arrested-spy-2179155.html>.

22 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 40.

23 See note 12.

24 Art 1, Convention on Special Missions (n 10) (emphasis added).

25 Akande and Shah (n 12) 823.

26 J Foakes, ‘Immunity for International Crimes? Developments in the Law on Prosecuting Heads of State in Foreign Courts’ (2011) 2011/02 Chatham House International Law Briefing Paper 12.

27 Arts 21 and 39 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (adopted 18 April 1961, entered into force 24 April 1964) 500 UNTS 95 (VCDR); Art 31 of the UN Convention on Special Missions (n 10); Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, ICJ Reports 2002 p 3, paras 51–55 and 58 (Arrest Warrant); and Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France), ICJ Reports 2008, p 177, paras 170, 174.

28 Akande and Shah (n 12) 819.

29 Preamble to the VCDR (n 27); Arrest Warrant case (n 27), Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, para 75; Akande and Shah (n 12) 818; Barker, , ‘State Immunity, Diplomatic Immunity and Act of State: A Triple Protection against Legal Action?’ (1998) 47 ICLQ 951Google Scholar; Fox, H, The Law of State Immunity (2nd edn, OUP 2008) 673Google Scholar; and Wickremasinghe (n 12) 406.

30 Akande and Shah (n 12), 818; Wickremasinghe (n 12) 406.

31 Djibouti v France (n 27) para 170; Arrest Warrant (n 27) para 51.

32 Arrest Warrant (n 27) para 51.

33 Arts 29 and 31 VCDR (n 27); Arrest Warrant (n 27) para 51.

34 Arrest Warrant (n 27) para 51; see also para 53 (emphasis added).

35 ibid para 53.

36 ibid.

37 Akande and Shah (n 12) 821.

38 Re Mofaz 128 ILR 709.

39 Re Bo Xilai (n 12).

40 Re Mofaz (n 38) 712.

41 Akande and Shah (n 12) fn 25, 821. It is normal practice for ministers of Member States of the European Union to participate in the Council of the European Union, which meets in ten different configurations: general affairs, foreign affairs, economic and financial affairs, justice and home affairs, employment, social security and consumer affairs, competitiveness (internal market and industry), transport, agriculture, the environment and education, youth, culture and sport. See: <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/council/council-configurations?lang=en>.

42 Djibouti v France (n 27).

43 ibid 185–6 and 194.

44 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 61.

45 Federal Court of Justice, Germany v Bat Khurts (n 7) para 12.

46 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 62.

47 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012 (Jurisdictional Immunities of the State), paras 56–57 <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/16883.pdf>; Arrest Warrant case (n 27) 20–1; Holland v Lampen-Wolfe (2000) 119 ILR 367, 378; Distomo Massacre (2000) 129 ILR 516; Al-Adsani v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 11, para 56; Ferrini v Federal Republic of Germany (2004) 128 ILR 663–4; and Jones v Saudi Arabia (2007) 1 AC 270, 291 and 306; and see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, Vol II (2) 147, para 26. That the immunity of State officials is designed to prevent the circumvention of the immunity of the State through proceedings against the individual is well known: see, for example, Twycross v Drefus (1877) 5 Ch 605; Zoernsch v Waldock and another [1964] 2 All ER 256, 266; Propend Finance Pty Ltd v Sing, (1997) 111 ILR 611, 669; and Chuidian v Philippine National Bank, 912 F 2d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 1990).

48 Church of Scientology (1978) 65 ILR 193, 198; Prosecutor v Blăskić (1997) 110 ILR 607, 707; Schmidt v Home Secretary (1997) 2 IR 121; United States of America v Friedland (1999) 120 ILR 417, 450; and Pinochet (No 3) (2000) 1 AC 147, 269, 285–286. But cf Samantar v Yousuf (2010) 130 S Ct 2278, 2286–7, 2289. For an examination of cases from different jurisdictions, see Tomonori, ‘The Individual as Beneficiary of State Immunity: Problems of the Attribution of Ultra Vires Conduct’ (2001) 29(4) DenvJIntlL&Pol 101.

49 Douglas, ‘State Immunity for the Acts of State Officials’ (2012) BYIL online 29 May.

50 ibid.

51 Fox (n 29) 102–3.

52 Crawford, J, ‘International Law and Foreign Sovereigns: Distinguishing Immune Transactions’ (1983) 54 BYIL 75–118Google Scholar and The Schooner Exchange v McFaddon (1812) 11 US 116.

53 For several examples, see n 121.

54 See notes 47 and 48 for examples.

55 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (n 47) paras 55–56.

56 Fox (n 29) 92.

57 ibid.

58 ibid 91–2.

59 ibid 87.

60 As noted by the International Court of Justice in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) ICJ Reports 2007, p 43, para 170ff; and Prosecutor v Blăskić (n 48) 698.

61 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fiftieth session, 20 April – 12 June and 27 July – 14 August 1998, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third session, Supplement No 10 (A/53/10), printed in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1998) vol II(2), paras 275–6.

62 See commentary to art 12, paras 5–7 of the ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of 2001, appended to GA Res 56/83, 12 December 2001; and Special Rapporteur's Fourth Report on State Responsibility, 31 Match 2001 (A/CN.4/517), para 46.

63 Crawford, J, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (2012) 542CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the absence of any differentiation, see art 12, ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, ibid. See also Crawford, J and Olleson, S, ‘The Nature and Forms of International Responsibility’, in Evans, (ed) International Law (2010) 450Google Scholar; and Douglas (n 49) 22.

64 Argentina Law No 24/488 (Statute on the Immunity of Foreign States before Argentine Tribunals) 1995 (Argentina); States Immunities Act 1985, section 3(1) (Australia); State Immunity Act 1982, (Canada); Israel Foreign State Immunity Law 2008, section 2 (Israel); Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect to a Foreign State 2009, Article 1 (Japan); State Immunity Ordinance 1981, section 17(2)(b) (Pakistan); State Immunity Act 1979, section 19(2)(b) (Singapore); Foreign States Immunities Act 1981, section 2(3) (South Africa); and State Immunity Act 1978, section 16(4) (UK). The US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976, 28 USC section 1605 does not contain a provision on immunity from criminal jurisdiction.

65 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (adopted 2 December 2004, opened for signature 16 December 2004) (2005) 44 ILM 803, Art 2(e). The European Convention on State Immunity of 16 May 1972, 74 ETS, 74 UNTS 1495, contains no explicit provision on immunity from criminal jurisdiction.

66 Arrest Warrant case (n 27) 25; Prosecutor v Taylor (2004) 128 ILR 239, 264; and Akande, D, ‘International Law Immunities and the International Criminal Court’ (2004) 98(3) AJIL 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 81.

68 ibid para 75.

69 ibid para 99 (emphasis added).

70 Franey, E, Immunity, Individuals and International Law: Which Individuals Are Immune from the Jurisdiction of National Courts under International Law (LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar.

71 Franey ibid 284, cited in Khurts Bat (n 1) para 95.

72 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 96.

73 ibid para 99.

74 Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaškić, Objection to the Issue of a Subpoena Duces Tecum, para 38.

75 Kolodkin, Second Report to the International Law Commission on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction (International Law Commission, 62nd Session, Geneva 2010 A/CN.4/631) para 59.

76 ibid.

77 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 99.

78 Jennings, ‘The Caroline and McLeod Cases’ (1938) 32 AJIL 82; and The People v McLeod 1 Hill (NY) 375.

79 Khurts Bat (n 1) para 86.

80 Franey (n 70) 204–10; Fox (n 29) 95–7; Van Alebeek, R, The Immunity of States and Their Officials in International Criminal Law and International Human Rights Law (OUP 2008) 108–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Jennings (n 78) 84.

82 Amos Durfee and the cabin boy, known as ‘little Billy’, who was shot while attempting to leave the vessel: ibid 84.

83 ibid 85.

84 ibid.

85 ibid 85 and 93.

86 Mr Webster to Mr Crittenden, Washington, 15 March 1841, 29 British and Foreign State Papers 1139; cited in part by Jennings: ibid, 94.

87 ibid.

88 2 RS 609, para 54 (2d ed), cited in ibid 95.

89 Jennings (n 78) 95.

90 Lord Ashburton to Mr Webster, 28 July 1842, 30 British & Foreign State Papers 195; cited by Jennings: ibid, 95.

91 ibid.

92 30 British and Foreign State Papers 201.

93 Jennings (n 78) 96. The full text of the Statue is reproduced in 30 British and Foreign State Papers 202–3.

94 McNair, A, International Law Opinions, vol 2 (CUP 1956) 230Google Scholar. Reprinted in Jennings (n 78) 97.

95 Van Alebeek (n 80) 108.

96 Tomonori (n 48) 102.

97 Fox (n 29) 97.

98 Hyde, C, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, vol 1 (2nd rev edn, Boston 1945) 822Google Scholar; see also 820–1.

99 Ipsen, K, ‘Combatants and Non-Combatants’ in Fleck, D (ed), The Handbook of Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict (2nd edn, OUP 2008) 82Google Scholar; Akande and Shah (n 12) 826; Franey (n 70) 86; and Van Alebeek (n 80) 127. Van Alebeek has pointed out that the principle of non-personal responsibility is limited to ‘acts performed in the context of the exercise of state authority under international law’, such as when States are engaged in boundary disputes or armed conflict: Van Alebeek (n 80) 127 and fn 88.

100 See n 27.

101 Pinochet (No 3) (n 48) charges 2 and 9, 240D.

102 ibid 210E–F.

103 ibid 265G.

104 ibid 241G–H.

105 ibid 205G–H.

106 Khurts Bat (n 1) paras 79–80.

107 Pinochet (No 3) (48) 277C.

108 ibid 283A.

109 Transcript from Pinochet (No 3) ibid., cited in Franey (n 70) 9–12.

110 ibid 11.

111 ibid 12.

112 Kolodkin (n 75) para 82.

113 Van Alebeek (n 80) 129.

114 Although the ICJ in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (n 47), para 64 et seq, did not explicitly endorse or reject the territorial tort exception, but did cite national practice providing for the exception (see n 121), which suggests that the exception does not form part of general international law. The Court limited its discussion to State practice concerning acts committed by the armed forces of a State on the territory of another in the course of an armed conflict (72–78). It did, however, note and accept that ‘the notion that State immunity does not extend to civil proceedings in respect of acts committed on the territory of the forum State causing death, personal injury or damage to property originated in cases concerning road traffic accidents and other “insurable risks”.’ (64).

115 UK State Immunity Act (n 64), section 4 (emphasis added).

116 ibid section 5 (emphasis added).

117 ibid section 6 (emphasis added).

118 ibid section 8 (emphasis added).

119 European Convention (n 65), art 11 and UN Convention (n 65), art 12. See also Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (n 47) para 66 et seq.

120 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (n 47) para 70; Argentina Law No. 24/488 (n 64), art 2(e) (Argentina); Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (n 64) section 13 (Australia); State Immunity Act 1985 (n 64) section 6 (Canada); Israel Foreign State Immunity Law 2008 (n 64) section 5 (Israel); Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect to a Foreign State 2009 (n 64) art 10 (Japan); State Immunity Act 1985 (n 64) section 7 (Singapore); Foreign States Immunities Act 1981 (n 64) section 6 (South Africa); State Immunity Act 1978 (n 64) section 5 (UK); and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (n 64) (a)(5) (US). The Pakistan State Immunity Ordinance 1981 (n 64) is the only State immunity act that does not contain a comparable provision.

121 Prosecutor v Blaškić IT-95-14, Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997.

122 Blaškić, Objection to the Issue of a Subpoena Duces Tecum (n 74) para 38.

123 The People v McLeod (n 78).

124 Horn v Mitchell (1916) 232 Fed Reporter 818 Cir Ct of Appeals.

125 Fox, H, ‘Some Aspects of Immunity from Criminal Jurisdiction of the State and Its Officials: The Blaškić Case’, in Vohrah, L et al. (eds), Man's Inhumanity to Man (Kluwer Law International 2003), 305Google Scholar.

126 Franey (n 70) 215.

127 See FIDH, ‘France in Violation of Law Grants Donald Rumsfeld Immunity, Dismisses Torture Complaint’ (FIDH, 27 November 2007) <http://www.fidh.org/france-in-violation-of-law-grants-donald-rumsfeld,4932>.

128 Lozano v Italy, Appeal Judgment, Case No 31171/2008; ILDC 1085 (IT 2008).

129 ibid para 4, H1.

130 ibid para 5, H3.

131 ibid para 5, H3.

132 ibid para 7, H5.

133 ibid para 8.

134 ibid A4.

135 See De Lupis, I, ‘Foreign Warships and Immunity for Espionage’ (1984) 78 AJIL 61, 69Google Scholar; Lissitzyn, O, ‘The Treatment of Aerial Intruders in Recent Practice and International Law’ (1953) 47 AJIL 565CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fn 30; Fox (n 29) 96; Franey (n 70) 272; Blaškić (n 48) para 41.

136 Fox (n 29) 96.

137 ibid.

138 For example, Francis Gary Powers case, Hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 86th Congress, 2d Session 175 (1960); see also The Avalon Project, ‘Foreign Relations of the United States May–July 1960’ <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/vx147.asp>. See also Rainbow Warrior (n 148 and discussion below), which concerned the prosecution by New Zealand of two French agents. Although note discussion below; this authority is controversial and may be broader than the exception relating to spies. For a list of cases, see Franey (n 70) 265–72.

139 Franey (n 70) 254.

140 ibid 255.

141 ibid 220.

142 ibid 218.

143 The Staschynskij Case, 18 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen 87 (Federal Republic of Germany, Bundesgerichtshof, 1962), partly cited in Van Alebeek (n 80) 125 and 130.

144 Van Alebeek (n 80) 130.

145 ibid.

146 ibid fn 98.

147 See Blaškić, Objection to the Issue of a Subpoena Duces Tecum (n 74) para 38 and Khurts Bat (n 1) para 89.

148 United Nations Secretary-General, Ruling on Rainbow Warrior Affair between France and New Zealand (1986), (1987) 26 ILM 1346ff (UN-SG Ruling).

149 ibid 1366.

150 ibid 1351 and 1357.

151 ibid 1346 and 1369–70.

152 Van Alebeek (n 80) 126 (emphasis in original).

153 Khurts Bat (n 1) paras 89–91, 99, citing with approval Franey (n 70) 210–14.

154 Franey (n 70) 214.

155 [1985] Criminal Law Review 510.

156 Noted in detail by Franey (n 70) 244–8.

157 ibid 245.

158 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United Kingdom; Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United States of America), General List Nos 88 and 89 (3 March 1992); Provisional Measures, Orders of 14 April 1993, ICJ Reports 1992, pp 3, 114; and Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, pp 9, 115.

159 ibid Order of 10 September 2003, Nos 88 and 89.

160 On 5 April 1999.

161 Franey (n 70) 247–8.

162 See discussion of Djibouti v France (n 27).

163 In this context, see the impact of the UN Security Council on immunity of officials before international tribunals has received considerable discussion after the Security Council referred Darfur to the ICC, which subsequently issued an arrest warrant for sitting head of State, President Al-Bashir: see, for example, D Akande, ‘The Legal Nature of Security Council Referrals to the ICC and its Impact on Al Bashir's Immunities’ (2009) 7(2) JICL 333, who discusses the legal nature of Security Council referrals to the ICC and their impact on the immunity of State officials.

164 Public Prosecutor v Adler, First instance judgment, No 12428/09; ILDC 1492 (IT 2010).

165 BBC News, ‘Italy upholds verdict on CIA agents in rendition case’ (BBC Online, 19 September 2012) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19653566>.

166 Alder (n 164) para F2; see also N O'Leary, ‘Italy court upholds “rendition” convictions on ex-CIA agents’ (Reuters, 19 September 2012) <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-italy-usa-rendition-verdict-idUSBRE88I13320120919>.

167 Alder (n 164) para F3.

168 Sabrina de Sousa v Department of State (United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No 9, 13 May 2009).

169 ibid.

170 Jurist, ‘Italian judge denies immunity claim of CIA agent accused in kidnapping plot’ (29 November 2005), cited in Franey (n 70) 259.

171 Gaeta, ‘Extraordinary renditions e immunità dalla giurisdizione penale degli agenti di Stati esteri: il caso Abu Omar’ (2006) 89 Rivista di diritto internazionale 126–30.

172 Memorandum by the International Law Commission Secretariat, ‘Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction’ (31 March 2008, A/CN.4/596); and Gaeta (n 171) 127–8.

173 International Law Commission, Third report on immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction. By Roman Anatolevich Kolodkin, Special Rapporteur (24 May 2011), A/CN.4/646, fn 117.

174 Djibouti v France (n 27) 177.

175 ibid para 185.

176 ibid.

177 ibid para 196.

178 ibid.

179 For further examples, see Franey (n 70) 244–81.

180 Kolodkin (n 75) para 81.

181 Crawford (n 52) 111.

182 Kolodkin (n 75) para 85.

183 ibid para 85; see also the Memorandum by the ILC Secretariat (n 172) para 163; Van Alebeek (n 80) 129; and Gaeta (172) 127–8.

184 The Schooner Exchange v McFadden (n 52) 147.

185 Van Alebeek (n 80) 127–8.

186 ibid 128.

187 ibid.

188 ibid.

189 ibid 127.

190 ibid.

191 ibid 130.

192 ibid 128.

193 Douglas (n 49) 7.

194 Although, in Application of the Genocide Convention (n 60) paras 166–167, the ICJ decided that the responsibility of a State may be engaged for acts, which if committed by individuals, would also constitute crimes under international law; the international responsibility of the State exists alongside the individual responsibility of the individual carrying out the conduct.

195 For a discussion of the concept of universal jurisdiction, see O'Keefe, , ‘Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept’ (2004) 2 JICL 735–60Google Scholar.

196 Pinochet (No 3) (n 48) 266–7.

197 See, for example, Lord Millett at ibid., 227A–278B.

198 Kaleck, W, ‘From Pinochet to Rumsfeld: Universal Jurisdiction in Europe 1998–2008’ (2009) 30 MichJIntlL 935Google Scholar; Human Rights Watch, ‘The Trial of Hissène Habré: Time Is Running Out for the Victims’ (HRW, January 2007) <http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/01/26/trial-hiss-ne-habr>.

199 Sulzer, J, ‘Implementing the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in France’ in Kaleck, W et al. (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes (Springer 2007) 127Google Scholar; and Kaleck (n 198) 937.

200 Kaleck (n 198), 942 and Human Rights Watch, ‘Netherlands: Congolese Torturer Convicted’ (8 HRW, April 2004) <http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/04/07/netherlands-congolese-torturer-convicted> accessed 6 February 2012.

201 Kaleck (n 198), 944–5.

202 BBC News, ‘“Dirty War” Officer Found Guilty’ (BBC Online, 19 August 2005) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4460871.stm>, cited in Kaleck (n 198) 955.

203 Kaleck (n 198) 956.

204 ibid 957.

205 See generally, Kaleck (n 198). See also the cases discussed above where State officials have not been prosecuted for criminal offences and Foakes (n 26), 10.

206 ibid 11, fn 58.

207 ibid, 11.

208 ibid.

209 Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal (n 29), paras 74–75.

210 See, for example, Lord Phillips in Pinochet (No 3) (n 48) 190.

211 Akande and Shah (n 12) 841–3.

212 ibid 843.

213 Akande, and Shah, , ‘Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes and Foreign Domestic Courts: A Rejoinder to Alexander Orakhelashvili’ (2011) 22(3) EJIL 860–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a contrary opinion and a reply see Orakhelashvili, , ‘Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts: A Reply to Dapo Akande and Sangeeta Shah’ (2011) 22(3) EJIL 849CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

214 Akande and Shah (n 12) 846.

215 C Milmo, ‘Whitehall anger over Mongolian spy chief release’ (The Independent, 4 October 2011) <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/whitehall-anger-over-mongolian-spy-chief-release-2365165.html>.