Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:09:02.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosecutorv. N. Case No. AO7178

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Ward Ferdinandusse
Ward Ferdinandusse*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
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 Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 686 - 690
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

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 [Editor’s Note: Though not identified in the Court’s decision, the defendant is known to be Sebastien Nzapali, whose name will be used in this case report. See Simons, Marlise, Dutch Court Puts Former Congo Officer on Trial in Torture Case, NY Times, Mar. 25, 2004, at A13 Google Scholar.]

2 Case No. A07178 (Rotterdam Dist. Ct. Apr. 7, 2004) [hereinafter Judgment], at <http://www.rechtspraak.nl>. An official translation, which is the version cited in this case report, can be found in 51 Neth. Int’l L. Rev. 439, 444–49 (2004). An unofficial translation is available online at <http://www.trial-ch.org/twdoc/NzapaliJudgement.pdf>.

3 Id. at 448.

4 Uitvoeringswet folteringsverdrag [Law for the Implementation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment], Stb. 1988, No. 478.

5 See In re Bouterse, HR, Sept. 18, 2001, para. 8.5, NJ 559, Eng. trans, at 2001 Neth. Y.B. Int’l L. 282–96 (2001).

6 As of October 1, 2003, the Wet Internationale Misdrijven [Law Containing Rules Concerning Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law], Stb. 2003, No. 270, replaced both the Torture Convention Implementation Act, supra note 4, and the Law for the Implementation of the Genocide Convention [Uitvoeringswet Genocideverdrag], Stb. 1964, No. 243.

7 See Maat, Leo, De verdachte had duidelijk misbruik gemaakt van macht, Opportuun, May 2004, available at <http://www.openbaarministerie.nl/?p=pg&s=536>Google Scholar (interview with Tea Polescuk, prosecutor in charge of the N case). Opportuun is published by the Netherlands Department of Prosecutions.

8 Judgment, supra note 2, at 447.

9 As the Court noted, the victim, in order to comply with this demand, “was forced, in the end, to pay the shipping costs himself.” Id.

10 Id.

11 Id. at 448.

12 On the implementation and enforcement of international criminal law in the Dutch legal order, see chapter 2 of Ward Ferdinandusse, Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts (forthcoming 2005), and Kleffner, Jann, Droit néerlandais, in Juridictions Nationales et Crimes Internationaux 217 (Cassese, Antonio & Mireille, Delmas-Marty eds., 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See In re Pinochet (Amsterdam Ct. App. Jan. 4, 1995), 1997 Neth. Y.B. Int’l L. 363, 364–65.

14 Dutch Say Dealer Sold Chemicals to Hussein, N.Y. Times, Dec. 8, 2004, at A10 Google Scholar.

15 Second Communist-Era Afghani War Crimes Suspect Arrested in Netherlands, Associated Press Worldstream, Dec. 7, 2004 Google Scholar (on file with author).

16 See Dutchman on Liberia War Charges, British Broadcasting Corp., Mar. 17, 2005, at <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4370533.stm>>Google Scholar.

17 See Kamminga, Menno T., First Conviction Under the Universal Jurisdiction Provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture: Rotterdam District Court, 7 April 2004, Sebastien N., 51 Neth Int’l L. Rev. 442 (2004)Google Scholar.

18 Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 [hereinafter CAT].

19 See Cass, crim., May 3, 1995, 1995 Bull. Crim., No. 161.

20 See CAT, supra note 18, Art. 1(1); Renée, Koering-Joulin, L’affaire du MC Ruby et la compétence intemationale des jurisdktions répressivesfrançaises, in Procédure Pénale, Droit Pénal International, Entraide Pénale: Études En L’honneur de Dominique Poncet 143, 146–50 (Christian, Nils Robert & Bernhard, Sträuli eds., 1997)Google Scholar.

21 See Cass, crim., Oct. 23, 2002, 2002 Bull. Crim., No. 195.

22 For an overview of such proceedings, see Luc Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives 83–219 (2003).

23 See New Trial for Afghan Warlord, Times (London), Nov. 26, 2004, at 29 Google Scholar.

24 See Prosecutor v. Delalić, No. IT-96-21-A, paras. 452–73 (Nov. 16, 1998).

25 See Burgers, Hans & Danelius, Herman, A Handbook on the Convention Againsttorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 46–47 (1988)Google Scholar.

26 GA Res. 3452 (XXX) (Dec. 9, 1975).

27 See Burgers & Danelius, supra note 25, at 118–19; see also Delalić, paras. 470–71 (on the purpose requirement under customary international law).

28 See CAT, supra note 18, preambular para. 4 (“Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”); see also Burgers & Danelius, supra note 25, at 119 (“Only in exceptional cases should it . . . be possible to conclude that the infliction of severe pain or suffering by a public official would not constitute torture as meant in the definition [in CAT Article 1] on the ground that he acted for purely private reasons.”).

29 Compare Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, No. IT-97-25-T, paras. 185–86 (Mar. 15, 2002) (“The Trial Chamber is satisfied that the following relevant purposes have become part of customary international law: obtaining information or a confession; punishing, intimidating or coercing the victim or a third person; or discriminating, on any ground, against the victim or a third person. The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that, although other purposes may come to be regarded as prohibited under the torture provision in due course, they have not as yet reached customary status.”).

30 On the various complexities of national prosecutions of international crimes, see Ferdinandusse, supra note 12, ch. 3.

31 Sec Judgment, supra note 2, at 445 (noting that the charge of rape lacks corroborating evidence to complement the statement of the alleged victim).