Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:05:50.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity under French law—grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949—genocide—torture—human rights violations in Bosnia and Rwanda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Bernard H. Oxman  and
Brigitte Stern
Brigitte Stern
Affiliation:
University of Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In rejavor. In re Munyeshyaka.

French Cour de cassation, Criminal Chamber, March 26, 1996.

In Re Munyeshyaka. 1998 Bull, crim., No. 2, at 3.

French Cour de cassation, Criminal Chamber, January 6, 1998.

In the Javor case, certain Bosnian victims of the policy of “ethnic cleansing” that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were refugees in France, tried to rely on the universal jurisdiction of the French courts in order to file a criminal complaint (plainte avec constitution departie civile) with an investigating magistrate (juge d'instruction) against their Serb torturers.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 525 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1999

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

* Relevant documents regarding the cases discussed herein without reference to a publication are in the possession of the author, to whom they were transmitted by William Bourdon, the attorney who initiated these cases. Translations from the French are by the author.

1 Complaint (emphasis added) (on file with author).

2 754 UNTS 73.

3 78 UNTS 277.

4 Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 UNTS 279.

5 UN GAOR, 28th Sess., Supp. No. 30, at 78, UN Doc. A/9030/Add.1 (1973).

6 1465 UNTS 85.

7 6 UST 3114, 75 UNTS 31 [No. I]; 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85 [No. II]; 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135 [No. Ill]; and 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287 [No. IV].

8 T.G.I. Paris, Order (ordonnance), May 6, 1994 (on file with author).

9 In France a statute of limitations applies to war crimes, if not to crimes against humanity.

10 Article VI of the Genocide Convention, supra note 3, provides:

Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act has been committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

In its decision in the Pinochet case, the Spanish National Court concluded that Article VI did not preclude the exercise of universal jurisdiction over genocide expressly contemplated by Spanish legislation. In re Pinochet, Nov. 5, 1998 (No. 1/98, Nat’l Ct., Crim. Div.) (plen. sess.) (to be reported in the July issue of the AJIL).

11 According to the judge, “si le requérant souligne justement l’existence des principes universels definissant le crime contre l’humanité comme un crime international, ces seuls principes ne sont pas sufnsants pour fixer la compétence juridictionnelle des tribunaux français.” Order, supra note 8, at 2.

12 CA Paris, Oct. 24, 1994 (on file with author).

13 1996 Bull, crim., No. 132, at 379 [hereinafter Javor]. See Jean-Pierre Dintilhac, Chronique de jurisprudence (Procédure pénale: Commentaire de l’arrêt de la Chambre criminelle du 26 mars 1996), 1996 Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Pénal Comparé [Rev. Sc. Crim.] (n.s.) 684; Chronique législative (Crimes contre l’humanité), 1996 Rev. Sc. Crim. (n.s.) 894.

14 The French text reads: “Ces dispositions revêtent un caractère trop général pour créer directement des regies de compétence extraterritoriale en matière pénale.” Javor at 381.

15 See Complaint, Kalinda et al. (T.G.I. Paris filed July 4, 1994); Complaint, Depaquier et al. (filed July 19, 1994), T.G.I. Paris, Order, Feb. 23, 1995 (on file with author).

16 See L’affaire du prêtre rwandais ou la confusion de Ponce Pilate, Commentaire No. 70, Droit Pénal, May 1998, at 17, note Jacques-Henri Robert.

17 Memorial in defense (Cass, crim., hearing Dec. 16, 1997) (on file with author).

18 T.G.I. Privas, Order (ordonnance), Depaquier, Kalinda et al., Jan. 9, 1996 (on file with author).

19 CA Nîmes, Mar. 20, 1996 (on file with author).

20 Law No. 96–432 of May 22, 1996, Journal Officiel [J.O.], May 23, 1996, p. 7695. This law was adopted two days after the decision of the Court of Appeals of Nimes of May 20, 1996, and therefore could not be applied by it.

21 Because the new law is procedural, the court of appeals, to which the case was remanded by the Cour de cassation, can apply it immediately to crimes previously committed. The situation was different in the Bosnian cases, although after the decision of the court of appeals but before the decision of the Cour de cassation, a law, No. 95–1, was also adopted on January 2, 1995, J.O., Jan. 3, 1995, p. 71, in order to adapt French legislation to Security Council Resolution 827 creating the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This law provided for universal jurisdiction regarding the crimes over which the ICTY had jurisdiction, in other words, genocide and other grave violations of humanitarian law. But the law also restricted universal jurisdiction to cases where the suspect was in France. Therefore, the absence of the suspects from French territory remained an obstacle to jurisdiction.

22 Claude Lombois, De la compassion territoriale, Rev. Sc. Crim., Apr.-June 1995, at 399, and especially at 401. See abo Michel Massé, Ex-Yougoslavie, Rwanda: Une compétence “virtuelle” des juridictions françaises? 1997 Rev. Sc. Crim. (n.s.) 893.

23 Brigitte Stern, La compétence universelle en France: le cas des crimes commis en ex-Yougoslavie et au Rwanda, 40 Ger. Y.B. Int’l L. 280, and especially at 288 (1997). See also Brigitte Stern, A propos de la compétence universelle, in Liber Amicorum Mohammed Bedjaoui 735 (1999); Rafaèle Maison, Les premiers cas d’application des dispositions pénales des Conventions de Genève par les juridictions internes, 6 Eur. J. Int’l L. 260 (1995).

24 Article 5 provides in pertinent part: “Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish jurisdiction over such offenses in cases where the alleged offender is present in the territory under its jurisdiction” (emphasis added).

25 Article 49 of Convention I, Article 50 of Convention II, Article 129 of Convention III, and Article 146 of Convention IV, supra note 7, provide in pertinent part: “Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts” (emphasis added).

26 Kenneth C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction under International Law, 66 Tex. L. Rev. 785, 791 (1988).

27 The French cases against Pinochet will be reported in the July issue.

28 Attorney-General v. Eichmann, 36 ILR 18, 26 (D.C. Jm. 1961).