Complementarity: Contest or Collaboration? - FICHL
Complementarity: Contest or Collaboration? - FICHL
Complementarity: Contest or Collaboration? - FICHL
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Complementarity</strong> and the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction f<strong>or</strong><br />
C<strong>or</strong>e International Crimes<br />
Rome Statute at this point should not be the standard to follow. Instead,<br />
states should rely on existing safeguards f<strong>or</strong> the exercise of national<br />
jurisdiction, such as immunity f<strong>or</strong> the most prominent state<br />
representatives and other representatives carrying out official acts.<br />
The Geneva Conventions and the first Additional Protocol allow the<br />
f<strong>or</strong>um state to extradite to another State Party which “has made out a<br />
prima facie case”. 39 This could be construed as to require that the latter<br />
state is both willing and able to proceed genuinely as required by the<br />
complementarity principle. Yet the ICRC‟s auth<strong>or</strong>itative comments<br />
merely suggest that a “prima facie case” means “a case which … would<br />
involve prosecution bef<strong>or</strong>e the courts”, without any further qualification. 40<br />
As f<strong>or</strong> the Convention against T<strong>or</strong>ture, adopted 35 years later, it has no<br />
similar requirement as it only instructs the f<strong>or</strong>um state to submit the<br />
suspect to its prosecut<strong>or</strong>ial auth<strong>or</strong>ities “if it does not extradite him”. 41<br />
In Belgium, deferral to a f<strong>or</strong>eign court is only allowed if that court<br />
meets the requirements imposed by international law on Belgium and that<br />
state. 42 This is a vague threshold. It can be construed so as to only require<br />
that the courts m<strong>or</strong>e generally adhere to international law, as opposed to<br />
requiring that the case in question be handled genuinely. In Germany,<br />
exercising universal jurisdiction is only allowed when this is necessary in<br />
<strong>or</strong>der to prevent impunity and does not “inappropriately interfere with the<br />
primary responsible jurisdictions”. 43 This too is vague. What is meant by<br />
preventing impunity and to “inappropriately interfere”? As demonstrated<br />
by the German Rumsfeld case of 2004, the provision has not always been<br />
applied in a manner consistent with its spirit.<br />
39<br />
Articles 49, 50, 129 and 146 of the Geneva Conventions I-IV and Article 85(1) of the<br />
First Additional Protocol.<br />
40<br />
Pictet 1958, supra note 7, p. 593.<br />
41<br />
Convention against T<strong>or</strong>ture and Other Cruel, Inhuman <strong>or</strong> Degrading Treatment <strong>or</strong><br />
Punishment (1984) article 7 (1).<br />
42<br />
Code de procédure pénale, article 12bis para. 4.<br />
43<br />
Referentenentwurf: Entwurf eines Gesetzeszur Einführung des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches,<br />
22 June 2001, p. 85 (my translation); f<strong>or</strong> German text, see http://www.lrzmuenchen.de<br />
/~satzger/unterlagen/V3D.pdf.<br />
<strong>FICHL</strong> Publication Series No. 7 (2010) – page 146