Author: Communication Department

Berlin/London/Geneva, 15 September 2015 – Electric shocks, beatings on the soles of the feet, stress positions during incommunicado detention: those who allow this type of torture can and must be held criminally liable – even abroad. Bahrain-born British citizen Jaafar Al-Hasabi has submitted a criminal complaint to the prosecuting authorities in Berne (Switzerland) against Bahraini Attorney General Ali Bin Fadhul Al-Buainain for participation in torture. The complaint was filed in anticipation of Al-Buainain’s attendance at the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) annual conference in Switzerland, where he stands to be elected vice president of the organization on 16 September.

Al-Hasabi was detained and tortured in Bahrain in 2010. Despite the United Nations’ expressed concerns as to his incommunicado detention and risk of torture, the Bahraini Public Prosecution Office, headed by Al-Buainain, authorized this incommunicado detention twice. Al-Hasabi, who now lives in London, has lodged a complaint before Berne prosecuting authorities with the support of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) in Berlin, the London based organizations REDRESS and the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD) as well as TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) in Geneva.

The NGOs call on the Swiss authorities not to hide behind diplomatic, political or economic justifications and on the Berne prosecutor to open an investigation in this case, in compliance with Switzerland’s obligations under the UN Convention against Torture.

“The Swiss authorities have the opportunity to show they take the UN Convention against Torture seriously and to apply their national law accordingly: opening an investigation into the role of the Bahraini Attorney General and calling him for questioning would send a clear message against torture and in support of the principle of universal jurisdiction”, said ECCHR General Secretary Wolfgang Kaleck.

“Bahrain has endorsed torture for too long by refusing to hold anyone responsible for systematic torture. Swiss authorities should not avoid their obligation to investigate those individuals under their jurisdiction for their role in this horrific practice”, said Sayed Alwadaei, Director of Advocacy at BIRD.

“The torture which Al-Hasabi suffered was appalling. Anyone allegedly responsible should be brought to justice, wherever they are, and any opportunity to do so should be vigorously pursued,” said REDRESS Director Carla Ferstman.

If the Swiss prosecutors fail to take up the case against Al-Buainain, ECCHR, REDRESS, BIRD and TRIAL will consider supporting Al-Hasabi’s legal challenge against such inaction.

More information on Bahrain http://www.ecchr.eu/en/our_work/international-crimes-and-accountability/bahrain.html

The decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) on the conflict-era enforced disappearance cases have gone unimplemented. To date, the HRC has decided ten individual cases against Nepal and eight cases were related with enforced disappearance.

Read the complete news release & media kit

In five cases decided by the HRC, the victims’ fate and whereabouts is still unknown and unaccounted for. Likewise, in three cases linked with torture, the HRC has acknowledged the fact that these victims were illegally detained, tortured and were subjected to enforced disappearance.

In its decisions, the UN holds the Nepalese government responsible for the enforced disappearance and torture of thosevictims. Furthermore, the HRC acknowledges that the relatives of the disappeared are also victims of human rights violations themselves, due to the deep anguish and distress owing to the disappearance of their loved ones. It further urges the authorities to carry out a thorough investigation into the cases, prosecute the culprits and grant appropriate reparations to their relatives.

Out of the cases viewed by the HRC so far, four were filed on behalf of the victims by TRIAL (Track Impunity Always), a Geneva-based NGO, and four by Advocacy Forum-Nepal. Among the cases decided are on the enforced disappearances of Surya Prasad Sharma, Yubraj Giri, Dev Bahadur Maharjan, Mukunda Sedhai, Tej Bahadur Bhandari, GyanendraTripathi, Jit Man Basnet, and Chakra Bahadur Katwal. Each of them was forcibly arrested, tortured and disappeared by state security forces during the 1996-2006 conflict in Nepal. Among them, the fate and whereabouts of Surya Prasad Sharma, Mukunda Sedhai, Tej Bahadur Bhandari, Gyanendra Tripathi and Chakra Bahadur Katwal is still unknown and unaccounted for. Yubraj Giri, Dev Bahadur Maharjan and Jitman Basnet were illegally detained, tortured and were subjected to enforced disappearance and later, they were released from the detention.

The case of Surya Prasad Sharma was the first decided against Nepal in October 2008. Likewise, the cases of Yubraj Giri, Dev Bahadur Maharjan, Mukunda Sedhai were decided in March 2011, July 2012, and July 2013 respectively. The cases of Bhandari, Tripathi and Basnet were decided in November 2014 and Katwal’s case was decided in April 2015.

In particular, the UN HRC urged the government of Nepal to:

  • investigate into the facts and inform the families about the results of such investigation;
  • prosecute, try and punish the perpetrators;
  • provide effective reparation to the victims’ relatives, including economic compensation and measures of satisfaction such as a public apology;
  • provide psychological rehabilitation and medical care to some of the victims’ relatives;
  • translate the decisions into Nepali and to widely publicize them;
  • adopt measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future (for instance, by criminalizing enforced disappearance).

The decisions, rendered by one of the most prominent international human rights bodies, send a message of hope to the families of all victims of enforced disappearances and torture in the country.

However, despite the victims’ efforts to bring the UN decisions to reality, the government has not done anything beyond providing some monetary compensation in one or two cases. This brings to light the utter government apathy towards the victims and their families. In reality, there is no effective procedure in place to implement the HRC’s views.

The perpetual violence of the social, economic and cultural costs of the disappearance of a family member still lives among scores of Nepalese people. The disappearance of a relative has created a deep vacuum in these families. For instance, the wives of the disappeared are called ‘half-widows’ and face countless obstacles to carry on with their lives.

In commemoration of the International Day of the Disappeared, TRIAL and Advocacy Forum-Nepal would once again like to urgeto the government of Nepal to immediately take necessary measures to put the UN Views to implementation and leave no stone unturned to that front.

“If Nepal wants to be perceived as a country governed by the rule of law, it must swiftly implement these decisions. A democratic State cannot longer remain mute over sorrows of its citizens marred by impunity”, says Philip Grant, Director of TRIAL.

Dr. Trilochan Upreti, Director of Advocacy Forum-Nepal says, “The State has made commitments at both the national and international levels to provide justice to victims. When it fails to do so at the national level, bodies at the international level have jurisdiction to consider the case and find Nepal responsible for breaching its obligations. It is in the State’s own interest to implement the decision of the HRC and provide justice at the domestic level.A failure to do so will only lead to further criticisms.”

In reference to the recently formed Commission for Inquiry of Enforced Disappearances (CIED), TRIAL and Advocacy Forum-Nepal welcome the added scope of scrutiny against widespread impunity in Nepal. However, it has to be noted that this transitional justice mechanism have a truth-seeking mandate, and therefore cannot replace a court of law. Moreover, the measures of reparation requested by the HRC are wider than the mandate of the CIED. For this reason, their implementation cannot be left alone to the CIED. TRIAL and Advocacy Forum-Nepal request the government of Nepal to implement the decisions of the HRC promptly and effectively.

In July 2015, TRIAL and 15 local associations working with women victims of sexual violence during the war submitted a follow-up report to inform the Commitee on the Elimination of Dicrimination against Women on the status of implementation of the recommendations issued in 2013 and about the remaining obstacles daily faced by women victims of sexual violence during the war.

In July 2015, TRIAL and 13 local associations working with women victims of sexual violence during the war, relatives of missing persons and victims of torture submitted a report to inform the Human Rights Committee on the ongoing violations suffered by these categories and the remaining obstacles in the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Committee will adopt its list of issues in November 2015 and will examine BiH in the forthcoming months.

Sarajevo – After several years of legal battle, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina sentenced several soldiers of the Republika Srpksa Army (VRS) to 10 years each in prison for war crime. Bosiljko and Ostoja Markovic; were found guilty for rapes committed in Kotor Varoš district against a woman of Croatian nationality in June 1992. For the very first time in BiH history of criminal proceedings, the Court also decided to provide a victim of war crimes with damage compensation, by subjecting the accused to a 26,500KM fine. TRIAL, the NGO that provided legal help to the victim, welcomes this landmark sentence, that paves the way towards justice for thousands of wartime survivors claiming for their rights.

(Read the PDF version of the news release)

 

In BiH, not a single wartime victim has ever obtained compensation through criminal proceedings for the harm suffered, despite their right to it. This unjust situation is mainly due to the fact that until now, courts and prosecutors have always redirected victims to civil procedures, instead of addressing their case in criminal proceedings, according to the existing legal foundations. As a consequence, most of the survivors – who do not receive any legal aid from the State – simply renounce to their fundamental right to compensation, as civil procedures imply revealing their often protected identity and produce additional costs that many victims are unable to pay. This is why today’s decision is a major victory for wartime victims in BiH: it will put additional pressure on prosecutors and courts to implement the already existing legal provisions. More importantly, it will pave the way towards justice for thousands of victims who are still waiting to see their human rights guaranteed within criminal proceedings.

“Money will not erase the pain caused by the perpetrators, but it is nevertheless a very important day for the victim. For her, justice has been fully served: she has both won her right to justice and compensation, and felt satisfaction through experiencing public recognition for her suffering. This verdict is of key importance for other victims of war crimes in BiH and the region: they can now hope for adjustments in legal practice that would compensate them while bringing criminals to justice”, said Adrijana Hanušić, TRIAL’s legal adviser in BiH.

Ana B. (assumed name) was raped on 28 June 1992, when she was still a minor. Immediately after, she got the courage to file a complaint before the Kotor Varoš police. Her and her family’s depositions allowed clear identification of the perpetrators, but no criminal proceeding was ever initiated by the Banja Luka district Prosecution office. She turned to TRIAL in 2012 for legal help. The NGO did its utmost to guarantee Ana B.’s right to justice and access to full information about her case. The NGO provided her with legal support, coordinated with other organizations to offer her psychological support and pushed legal institutions to take action. Two years later, a Court indictment against two individuals was finally confirmed. TRIAL hired a lawyer to defend her right to compensation for the trauma she suffered.  At the end of 2014, Ana B. testified before the Court as a victim in the case “Ostoja and Bosiljko Marković”.

Today, TRIAL welcomes the Court’s decision, but also urges institutions, courts and prosecutors to enable access to justice for the victims by enforcing the already established legal provisions, by protecting the victims from any re-traumatization and by helping them avoid additional costs in civil proceedings. “Not only perpetrators but also victims have the right to free legal aid and it is an obligation of the State to ensure human right for all”, concluded Ms Hanušić.

Make Way for Justice: Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2015

TRIAL, ECCHR and FIDH have published their first annual review of the main universal jurisdiction cases in 2014. “Make Way for Justice” examines all cases in which notable developments occurred in 2014. A total of 37 cases were studied in order to gain a better understanding of the potential of this under-exploited principle in the fight against impunity.

Read this news article for more information

The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAGS) decided not to further prosecute the Swiss precious metals company Argor-Heraeus SA, that handled dirty African gold. While Swiss authorities acknowledged that Argor did refine looted gold and violated its duty of diligence, the case was nonetheless closed, a decision met with disbelief by the three NGOs working on the case. Together with Conflict Awareness Project (CAP), the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) supported a legal complaint filed in November, 2013 by TRIAL (Track Impunity Always), in which the Swiss NGO accused Argor of illegally processing over three tones of pillaged gold from the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to the NGOs, this decision undermines international efforts to eliminate the illegal resource trade that fuels conflicts around the world.

On 10 March 2015, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAGS) closed the Argor case and concluded that there was no reason to believe that the company had been aware of the criminal origin of the three tons of gold pillaged from the DRC that it had refined. TRIAL, OSJI and CAP find this outcome hard to believe. According to the decision:

  • The company did indeed refine three tons of dirty gold pillaged by Congolese rebels;
  • numerous reports linking the armed conflict in the DRC and the Congolese origin of dirty gold had been published at the time of the events;
  • The refining of such gold was a key element of the war effort in eastern DRC;
  • Violation of an anti-laundering regulation can lead to a criminal conviction;
  • The company violated a regulation it had itself adopted in order to meet the requirements of the Law on Laundering and the Law on the Control of Precious Metals. In fact, indications of the origin of the gold “…should have raised Argor’s suspicions. (…) It failed to clarify the origin of the gold although its internal regulations required it to do so if there were any doubts as to the origin of the raw material for refining (…).”
  • Despite these overwhelming findings, the OAGS decided to close the case 16 months after opening a criminal inquiry. It felt that the company should not be held responsible as “it is not clear (…) that the defendants had any doubts as to, or concealed any evidence of, the criminal origin of the gold.”

First and foremost, the OAGS’s stance raises questions over Switzerland’s role in the processing of and trade in precious metals. The NGOs still expect to know how several tons of dirty gold coming from one of the bloodiest and publicised conflicts of our time can reach Switzerland and be refined there without any consequences.

The NGOs also noted the grave message the closure of the case sends: “This decision gives free rein to companies who violate their duty of diligence and prefer to remain ignorant of the criminal origin of raw materials. It means that they can simply turn a blind eye to indications suggesting the criminal origin of raw materials in order to avoid prosecution.”

The NGOs finally recall that there can be no justice without accountability for the private sector: “When companies fuel some of the most violent conflicts in the world, any failure on the part of the authorities to sanction them only ends up encouraging them to pursue their harmful activities.”

 

The Argor case in 8 questions

1. WHO IS ARGOR-HERAEUS? 

Argor-Heraeus SA is one of the five largest precious metal refining companies in the world. The company is particularly active in the refining and sale of gold. Its headquarters are in Mendrisio (Ticino, Switzerland).

 

2. WHAT IS IT BEING ACCUSED OF?

Argor-Heraeus is accused of having refined several tons of dirty gold between 2004 and 2005, taken from mines in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and pillaged by armed groups controlling the region at that time. In the complaint filed in November 2013, the NGOs stated that they believed the company knew of the origin of the raw material (see www.stoppillage.org). They therefore considered that these acts could form complicity in pillaging, which is a war crime, along with aggravated laundering.

According to the complaint, Argor-Heraeus knew, or at the least should have suspected, that these raw materials, provided by Hussar Ltd and Hussar Services Ltd, interlinked companies based respectively in Jersey and London, were the proceeds of pillage, which is a war crime. Argor knew that Hussar had obtained the gold from a Ugandan trading company which itself had imported the gold “from the region.” At the time, virtually no gold was produced in Uganda and almost all gold exported from Uganda was smuggled from mines controlled by unlawful armed groups in neighboring DRC.

 

3. WHY HAS THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SWITZERLAND (OAGS) CLOSED THE CASE AFTER A 16-MONTH INVESTIGATION?

The OAGS decided that the evidence in its possession was insufficient to conclude that Argor-Heraeus was aware of the illegal origin of the gold.

 

4. WHAT ARE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS IN THIS LEGAL DECISION AND WHAT DO THE NGOS THINK ABOUT THIS?

  • The OAGS confirmed that the gold refined by Argor-Heraeus had indeed come from a rebel armed group in the DRC and that the act of refining it had been crucial to the group’s war effort.
  • The NGOs welcomed this conclusion, which was in line with the evidence they provided to support their claims.
  • In the decision, the OAGS noted that the refining was an objective act of complicity in pillaging but that evidence of Argor’s knowledge of the illegal origin of the gold was lacking, thus shielding the company from any form of sanction.
  • The NGOs find this a regrettable conclusion as there was an abundance of public information in this regard (articles and reports from the mass media, the UN and NGOs). This conclusion could end up encouraging companies active in the precious metals sector not to ascertain the origin of the raw material they receive in order to guard against any possible prosecution.
  • Noting that, according to case law, a regulatory violation could lead to a criminal conviction for laundering by omission, the OAGS finally ruled that the company was in breach of its own regulation, adopted in accordance with the Law on Laundering (LBA) and the Law on the Control of Precious Metals (LCMP). The OAGS that stated that, in the presence of “concrete indications (…) that should have raised Argor’s suspicions, (…) [it] failed to clarify the origin of the gold although its internal regulations required it to do so.” However, the OAGS decided that this violation should not result in the company’s conviction because “it was not clear (…) that the defendants had any doubts as to, or had concealed any indication of, the criminal origin of the gold.”
  • The NGOs believe that this reasoning could have harmful consequences: it could result in refining companies preferring not to seek further information if there are any doubts as to the illegality of the raw materials being processed. It simply encourages them to bury their heads in the sand.

 

5. WHY HAS AN APPEAL NOT BEEN MADE AGAINST THIS DECISION?

Under Swiss law, NGOs do not have the right to act as plaintiff in proceedings. They are therefore only able report activities that they consider to be in violation of Swiss law. Even when a decision is passed on a case that has been reported by them, they cannot appeal against it. In this case, the victim of the pillaging was formally the DRC since the mineral resources that were pillaged belonged to this country. The DRC did not, however, appear as a plaintiff.

 

6. WHAT WERE THE MAIN STAGES IN THE CASE?

  • Between 2004 and 2012, in collaboration with the Open Society Justice Initiative, Kathi Lynn Austin investigated the dirty gold coming from the DRC and sent her findings and evidence to TRIAL.
  • TRIAL then undertook a further year’s investigative and legal analytical work before filing a criminal complaint with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office on 30 October 2013.
  • On 10 March 2015, the OAGS decided to archive the case, subsequently making this decision public.
  • For more information on the precise details of the proceedings, see www.stop-pillage.org.

 

7. WHICH NGOS HAVE BEEN ACTIVE IN THIS CASE AND WHAT HAS BEEN THEIR ROLE?

The complaint Argor was based upon nine years of investigative work carried out by Kathi Lynn Austin (Director of CAP), supported by the OSIJ. The Justice Initiative has also supported TRIAL’s lawyers in developing the international legal arguments around the case. The results of these investigations have been shared with Jersey Channel Islands and UK law enforcement authorities.

TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) is a Swiss NGO fighting the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for and complicit in the most serious international crimes.

trialinternational.org

Open Society Justice Initiative is a program of the Open Society Foundations that uses law to protect and empower people around the world. Its work includes combating natural resource–related corruption.

www.opensocietyfoundations.org

Conflict Awareness Project is an international not-for-profit organisation that investigates, documents and brings to justice those principally responsible for arms trafficking and the transnational criminal operations that are fuelling these conflicts.

conflictawareness.org

 

8. WHAT NEXT FOR THE NGOS THAT ARE FIGHTING PILLAGING AND LAUNDERING?

These three NGOs are currently working on a number of cases that could be brought to trial in different countries. These cases remain confidential for the moment.

The Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted two days ago in urgent procedure important amendments to the Criminal Code. By recalibrating the crimes of torture, enforced disappearance and rape, the amended Criminal Code will help tackle widespread impunity, break the law of silence and provide justice and recognition to thousands of victims all across the country. After years of pressure on State authorities, TRIAL welcomes the newly adopted set of modifications to BiH’s Criminal Code, which is now in line with international human rights standards.

  • (Read the full pdf version of the News Release)

The freshly modified Criminal Code codifies at last the crime of enforced disappearance and provides a more extensive definition of torture. It also broadens the scope of persons to be held criminally liable for those serious human rights violations and plans sanctions adapted to their gravity. This set of amendments is a decisive push towards better accountability, not only for crimes commited during the 1992-1995 war, but also for crimes committed nowadays.

Those newly adopted amendments crown TRIAL’s long-term fight for better accountability in BiH regarding those crimes. In 2011 for instance, the NGO had voiced its deepest concern to the Ministry of Justice, highlighting the inconsistency between BiH criminal legislation and international standards when dealing with war-time rape and sexual violence, as well as torture and enforced disappearance.

“This is an important moment for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has finally aligned to international standards its Criminal Code for crimes of war-time rape, torture and enforced disappearance. Thanks to these newly adopted amendments, the State will limit space for impunity for past crimes and prevent their reoccurrence in future”, says TRIAL’s legal adviser, Adrijana Hanušić.  

Without respite, the NGO had meetings, attended the public consultation process, submitted reports to the Ministry of Justice and informed international bodies on this issue. TRIAL had advocated for BiH to provide a clearer definition of torture and to plan heavier sanctions for perpetrators. Related to the definition of the crime of rape, committed as a crime against humanity or as a war crime against civilians, the NGO insisted that it need to be aligned with international standards, eliminating the use of force or threat of force on the victim of rape or a person close to her as an element of the crime. TRIAL also advocated for enforced disappearance to be considered as a separate crime.

 “After years of advocacy to promote the respect human rights in our country, State officials have finally taken concrete action. We support their move forward and invite them to continue to support the rule of law, especially in cases related to war-crimes, so that we can prevent impunity to the maximum”, concludes Selma Korjenić, TRIAL Coordinator for the Support of Wartime Sexual Violence Survivors.

It is a great relief to see that TRIAL’s recommendations are now enshrined in BiH’s Criminal Code.This is an important victory for the fight against impunity and crime prevention in the future.

Geneva’s justice system has condemned  Erwin Sperisen for 10 murders. The former Guatemalan Chief of Police was found guilty of extrajudicial murders and sentenced to  life imprisonment. For the NGOs that denounced his actions, justice has now been done and this case will stand as an example in the continuing fight against impunity for State crimes.

On 12 May 2015 at 17.00 hours (UTC +2), the Criminal Division of the Court of Justice passed its verdict and found Erwin Sperisen guilty of 10 murders. The sentence was passed in Geneva’s  Palais de Justice. The former Chief of Guatemala’s National Civil Police (PNC) was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for 10 murders that occurred while his forces were regaining control of Pavon prison in Guatemala in 2006. As opposed to the initial trial, the appeal judges also condemned Mr. Sperisen for  participating in the executions of the «El Infiernito» prison escapees. Erwin Sperisen’s conviction follows those of several other individuals also sentenced for the same crimes to long prison terms in Guatemala

For the NGOs, confirmation of Mr. Sperisen’s conviction by the Swiss courts sends a strong signal that State crimes cannot go unpunished. They have unanimously welcomed the result:

  • Bettina Ryser, Secretary General of ACAT-Suisse: “We welcome the courage of the Guatemalan witnesses, victims and NGOs in denouncing the atrocities committed. This conviction shows that, despite all the obstacles, their efforts are gradually bearing fruit and they must continue to defend the rule of law.”
  • Philip Grant, Director of TRIAL (Track Impunity Always): “The sentence passed is proof that the justice system is able to prove the involvement of the State and its representatives in serious human rights violations, and bring them to justice. We hope that Erwin Sperisen’s conviction will set an example, particularly to the Spanish authorities, who must now prosecute his immediate superior, former minister Carlos Vielman, for the same acts.”
  • Gerald Staberock, Director of OMCT: “This decision sends a clear signal to the Guatemalan authorities, who must do everything in their power to guarantee victims access to impartial justice and to put an end to the endemic impunity that is enjoyed by torturers and the perpetrators of serious human rights violations.”
  • Chantal Woodtli and Claude Reymond of the CGAS: “The impunity that has too long been enjoyed by the ruling class in Guatemala has been overturned. This decision is evidence of this, as are the significant demonstrations that have taken place to demand Vice-President Baldetti’s removal from office for involvement in corruption cases.”

 

Background to the Sperisen case

Trial

A trial was held from 15 May to 6 June 2014 before Geneva’s Criminal Court, which is composed of seven judges. Some 15 witnesses were called to testify during two weeks of hearings. His lawyers appealed and Erwin Sperisen was retried by Geneva’s Criminal Court from 4 to 6 May 2015, without any witnesses being heard. The verdict of this second hearing was made known on 12 May 2015. Mr. Sperisen may still appeal to the Federal Court but any hearing will only consider issues of possible violations of the law or arbitrary evaluations of the facts.

Procedure and arrest

  • Nearly eight years ago, a coalition of NGOs denounced Erwin Sperisen to the judicial authorities for atrocities committed between 2004 and 2007. This coalition of NGOs campaigned tirelessly before Geneva’s prosecuting authorities for an investigation into this dual Swiss-Guatemalan national who lived in Geneva. An arrest warrant was also issued for him by Guatemala. On 31 August 2012, on the orders of Geneva’s General Attorney, Erwin Sperisen was finally arrested.
  • As a Swiss citizen, Erwin Sperisen could not be extradited to Guatemala because the Federal Constitution prevents Switzerland from extraditing its own citizens: Switzerland is obliged to try them even if their crimes have been committed abroad. The Canton of Geneva alone was therefore competent to investigate the case.
  • During the preliminary hearings, Mr. Sperisen was heard 11 times by Geneva’s Attorney General. Fourteen witnesses travelled from France, Guatemala and Spain and four rogatory commissions (international legal assistance requests) were sent to Austria, Spain and Guatemala. The investigation convinced the Geneva Prosecutor of Erwin Sperisen’s criminal responsibility. In January 2014, he decided to bring the accused before Geneva’s Criminal Court for the murder of 10 people.

Context

Guatemala is a country marked by considerable violence committed both by gangs and by the authorities, which have too long cohabited with organised crime and ignored the rule of law. And yet the State has a Constitution and laws, and it has ratified international conventions for the protection of human rights. As in Switzerland, neither murder nor the death penalty are permitted, and nor is the murder of prisoners. Members of the police force are there to ensure that the law is upheld and they do not have any right to life or death over their fellow citizens. Several other individuals involved in the same acts have also been brought to justice:

  • Victor Soto Diéguez, former Chief of PNC Investigations, sentenced to a 33-year prison term in January 2015.
  • Axel Arnoldo Martínez Arriaza and Víctor Manuel Ramos Molina, both former members of the PNC Investigations Team, sentenced to a 25-year prison term.
  • Javier Figueroa, Erwin Sperisen’s former right-hand man, was acquitted by a jury in Austria in 2014. His brother Aldo Stéfano Figueroa Díaz was sentenced to a 15-year prison term in Guatemala.
  • Carlos Vielman, former Minister of the Interior, is still awaiting trial in Spain. According to our sources, this trial could take place in Madrid within the next few months, before the Criminal Court (Sala de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional).

 

Erwin Sperisen’s trial on appeal to be held from 4 to 8 May 2015 in Geneva: NGOs hope that the fight against impunity will come out strengthened

The retrial of Erwin Sperisen will be held from 4 to 8 May 2015 in Geneva. His lawyers had appealed against the life sentence for seven murders handed down on 6 June 2014. The Court of Second Instance will thus have to re-examine the part he played in the extrajudicial executions of 10 prisoners during operations carried out by the Guatemalan Police. For the NGOs that reported Erwin Sperisen to the Swiss authorities, this trial is the opportunity to shed light again on the tragic acts that the former Chief of the Guatemalan Police is alleged to have committed. They cannot speculate as to what the outcome of the trial might be, but they hope that it will remind everyone that no Swiss citizen – whether here or elsewhere – can break the law without paying the consequences of doing so. Guatemala remains in the grips of corruption and organized crime, so this trial on appeal has considerable potential: that of reversing the impunity that members of the Guatemalan State apparatus have enjoyed for far too long. 

On 6 June 2014, Erwin Sperisen, a Swiss and Guatemalan citizen, was sentenced to life imprisonment. Given the seriousness of the acts, the number of victims and the lack of empathy and awareness displayed by the former Chief of the Guatemalan National Police, the judges in the Geneva Criminal Court considered that only a sentence of life imprisonment would be likely to punish the accused. This judgment made it clear that the perpetrators of serious crimes – however high up they might be – are not immune from criminal penalties, and that their victims – whatever their origins – deserve justice.

Erwin Sperisen and his lawyers have appealed against this decision. Erwin Sperisen will therefore be called to appear at the second instance trial being held from 4 to 8 May 2015 before the Criminal Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice.

Eight years ago, an NGO coalition reported the former Chief of the Guatemalan National Civil Police (PNC) to the justice system. That coalition suspected that the officers under his command had committed serious and numerous human rights violations(extrajudicial executions, torture, enforced disappearances and sexual violence). On 31 August 2012, Erwin Sperisen was finally arrested by order of Geneva’s Public Prosecutor and remanded in custody until his trial in 2014.

For far too long, the Guatemalan State apparatus has been associated with organized crime and ignored the rule of law. Today, human rights defenders and journalists continue to be threatened, harassed or killed while perpetrators of serious violations enjoy considerable impunity. As far as NGOs are concerned, it is now time for the rule of law to ultimately reign in Guatemala. Just a few months away from the trial in Spain of Carlos Vielman, his former superior, and after the sentencing of his subordinate Victor Soto Diéguez to a 33-year prison term, NGOs hope that the second trial of Erwin of Sperisen will help to reverse impunity.

 

The Erwin Sperisen trial in 10 questions

1. Who is Erwin Sperisen?

Erwin Johann Sperisen Vernon has Swiss and Guatemalan nationalities. This fervent follower of the Evangelical Church was born on 27 June 1970 into a wealthy family. He has been living in Geneva since March 2007, is married and has three children. He was the former Security Assistant for the Mayor and a Municipal Councillor of Guatemala City (2003), and worked as the Chief of the National Civil Police (PNC) from August 2004 to March 2007. He resigned from that post after the assassination of several Salvadorian parliamentarians by his officers (the Parlacen case) and took refuge in his country of origin: Switzerland. He was arrested on 31 August 2012 by the prosecuting authorities from the Canton of Geneva, who suspected him of being involved in several extrajudicial executions (the Pavón and Infiernito cases). Since his arrest, he has been held at Champ-Dollon prison (Geneva).

2. What acts is he alleged to have committed?

An arrest warrant for Erwin Sperisen was issued by the Guatemalan authorities in August 2010. He was reported to the Swiss criminal authorities for his and his officers’ involvement in the following crimes: extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture and sexual violence. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for seven murders committed during operations to regain control of Pavón prison in 2006. 

3. Why is he being brought to trial in Switzerland?

The arrest warrant issued by Guatemala would not have led to Erwin Sperisen’s extradition to that country because the Swiss Constitution prohibits Switzerland from extraditing its own citizens. However, Switzerland is under the obligation to bring them to trial, even if their crimes were committed abroad.

4. Is anyone else being brought to trial for the same acts?

Several individuals involved in the same acts have been brought to justice:

  • Victor Soto Diéguez, the former Chief of PNC Investigations, was sentenced to a 33-year prison term in Guatemala in January 2015 for the murders committed in the Pavón and Infiernito cases.
  • Axel Arnoldo Martínez Arriaza and Víctor Manuel Ramos Molina, both former members of the PNC Investigations team, were sentenced to a 25-year prison term in Guatemala.
  • Javier Figueroa, Erwin Sperisen’s former right-hand man, was acquitted by a jury in Austria in 2014. His brother, Aldo Stéfano Figueroa Díaz, was sentenced to a 15-year prison term in Guatemala.
  • Carlos Vielman, the former Minister of the Interior, is awaiting trial in Spain. According to our sources, this trial should begin within the next few months.

5. What will be the difference between the first trial last year and the second instance trial?

The trial will be similar to the first one. The judges will be able to review the facts and the law. They will be able to freely evaluate the case evidence. However, as many of the witnesses were already heard in the first trial, the judges will have to base their decisions on the evidence and testimonies already administered during that trial.

6. Can the verdict of the second trial really be different from that of the first trial?

It is not up to NGOs to speculate as to what the outcome of a trial might be. The first instance trial concluded with a detailed judgment (comprising more than 130 pages) based on overwhelming evidence and with a life imprisonment sentence. However, the Criminal Chamber judges are not bound by the conclusions of the Criminal Court. It is up to the Court of Second Instance to reach an opinion and make its verdict public.

7. What comes after this second verdict?

If Mr Sperisen’s conviction and sentence are confirmed by this second verdict, the accused may lodge an appeal before the Federal Court. But the facts will not, in principle, be reviewed in this instance: only matters of violations of law or arbitrary evaluation of the facts are dealt with by it. Thus, the version of the facts established by the Geneva Court of Justice will prevail before the Federal Court, which will not hear any witness or expert. However, if the outcome of the second trial is acquittal, Mr Sperisen will be able to demand compensation for his time spent in remand.

8. What is the role of NGOs in this case?

Since 2004, several Guatemalan associations have been investigating Erwin Sperisen’s officers, who are suspected of having committed serious crimes. In 2008, the Geneva Community of Trade Union Action (CGAS), Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (ACAT-Suisse), and the Uniterre trade union filed an initial criminal complaint against Erwin Sperisen with Geneva’s Public Prosecutor. TRIAL and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) filed a second criminal complaint in 2009. Over a period of two years, NGOs asked Geneva’s Public Prosecutor (Attorney General Daniel Zapelli) to open an investigation. The issue of an international warrant for the arrest of Erwin Sperisen and 18 other suspects led to his arrest. Not having access to the proceedings, NGOs will play an observation and awareness-raising role during the trial. They will also carry out informative work by recalling the seriousness of the crimes committed in Guatemala, the need for justice for victims and the need to fight against impunity.

9. Guatemala is different from Switzerland. Can’t the use of force be justified?

Guatemala is a country marked by considerable violence, but it is not lawless. The State has a Constitution and laws, and it has ratified international conventions for the protection of human rights. As in Switzerland, murder or the death penalty are not permitted there. The murder of prisoners is not permitted there either. The prisoners that Sperisen and his officers allegedly killed were serving time in prison for breaking the law. Therefore, like all other citizens, they had fundamental rights: the right to life and the right to a fair trial. Members of the police forces are there to ensure that the law is upheld and not to break it. They do not have any right to life or death over their fellow citizens. 

10. Why is the fight against impunity still an important issue in Guatemala?

The country is plagued by extreme violence and high levels of corruption; these are major obstacles that need to be overcome in the fight against impunity. The recent ousting of Attorney General Claudia Paz y Paz – who has done a lot of work for the rule of law – is very worrying, as are the attempts to end the term of office of the United Nations Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Human rights defenders and journalists are regularly the targets of threats and even executions, while the perpetrators of these crimes continue to go unpunished. The reigning impunity fosters violence and criminality in Guatemala.

 

More information?

TRIAL, ECCHR and FIDH have published their first annual review of the main universal jurisdiction cases in 2014. “Make Way for Justice” examines all cases in which notable developments occurred in 2014. A total of 37 cases were studied in order to gain a better understanding of the potential of this under-exploited principle in the fight against impunity.

All too often, perpetrators of international crimes escape justice by fleeing to other countries. However, a legal principle exists to more effectively fight this form of impunity:universal jurisdiction. It enables States to prosecute and try – under certain conditions – suspects of international crimes regardless of where the crimes were committed and the nationality of the perpetrators and victims.

Universal jurisdiction is a central tool of the work carried out by TRIAL, ECCHR and FIDH in their fight against impunity. Indeed, the three NGOs rely on this principle to report suspects of international crimes to national or foreign authorities, so that those authorities can initiate criminal proceedings against the suspects. Today, these NGOs have published a study entitled: “2014 universal jurisdiction annual review: Make Way for Justice!”.

The first review of its kind, “Make Way for Justice” catalogues universal jurisdiction cases around the world, in which important developments have been made in 2014. The Franco dictatorship in Spain, the first Liberian Civil War under the presidency of Charles Taylor, the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the crimes committed in Syria since 2011 feature among the 37 cases addressed in the review. These legal proceedings demonstrate the increasing use of this principle to fight impunity. The study analyses cases in 12 countries – including Germany, the UK, Senegal and Norway – which, thanks to universal jurisdiction, opened investigations, indicted or tried suspects of the most serious international crimes in 2014.

We have come a long way since the Pinochet case in 1998, which was one of the first times universal jurisdiction was applied. Nonetheless, while significant advances have been made in universal jurisdiction cases over the past year, there are still several major obstacles to its use. “Make Way for Justice” takes stock of these successes and the progress that remains to be made.

An international law reference tool, this study is intended for legal practitioners, media representatives, NGOs and human rights defenders who wish to gain a better understanding of universal jurisdiction and how it works. TRIAL, ECCHR and FIDH hope that this publication will open the way for new proceedings against the perpetrators of serious crimes, help combat impunity, and increase a better understanding for universal jurisdiction prosecutions.

Under embargo until 7:pm UTC + 1

 

Geneva City Hall will pay homage to TRIAL and Geneva Call on Thursday 26 March 2015. The city’s Mayor has awarded the two Geneva-based NGOs the “Genève reconnaissante” (Grateful Geneva) medal. Mr Sami Kanaan applauded “the fundamental role of these civil society actors in today’s world”. He also highlighted the “outstanding work” carried out by TRIAL to place the law at the service of victims of the most serious crimes. TRIAL is proud and happy to receive this accolade, which acknowledges its tireless fight against impunity.

Since 1932, the City of Geneva has awarded the “Genève reconnaissante” medal in recognition of the work of figures who contribute to raising the profile of Geneva. Previous recipients of the award include Kofi Annan, Albert Cohen, Jean Pictet, the Alinghi Team and Alice Rivaz. This year, the Mayor of Geneva has chosen to honour two legal NGOs born in Geneva: TRIAL and Geneva Call. Sami Kanaan affirms that “the strength and vitality of their commitment to promoting respect for the law is a credit and an asset to Geneva“.

 

Two NGOs upholding respect for the law

Geneva Call promotes respect for international humanitarian law by armed non-State actors. TRIAL, meanwhile, works to obtain justice for victims of the most serious crimes and ensure that their persecutors face prosecution. Although the missions and methods of Geneva Call and TRIAL are different, these two Geneva-based organizations share a fundamental belief in the force of law, and the importance of the law being upheld everywhere and by everyone.

“The awarding of this medal to our organizations reflects the city hall’s attachment to the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and to justice in general”, says Philip Grant, Director of TRIAL. The TRIAL Committee, directors and staff sincerely thank the Geneva authorities, and the Mayor in particular, for this distinction.

 

TRIAL: defending victims of the most serious crimes

From a small volunteer association when it was founded in 2002, TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) has grown to become an international NGO and now has some thirty staff worldwide. TRIAL is non-political and non-denominational, and is recognized as being an organization of public interest. Today, it is considered one of the most effective NGOs in the fight against impunity. In 2014, the institution in Bosnia-Herzegovina of proceedings against suspected perpetrators of sexual violence during the war, the first sentences in Burundi by the UN, new precedents for victims of enforced disappearances in Nepal and criminal proceedings brought against suspects in Switzerland are examples of TRIAL’s actions and the impact that the law can have. “Since its creation, TRIAL has supported hundreds of victims in their pursuit of justice, truth and reparation by initiating legal proceedings in numerous countries and before various international bodies”, explains Giorgio Malinverni, President of the NGO and former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights.

Burundi – mandated by TRIAL, a lawyer filed a complaint on behalf of M. Busuguru, who died in prison of tuberculosis one year ago to the day. In the light of neglect by the penitentiary authorities, the latter are accused of involuntary manslaughter.

Consult the French version to see the full news.

Sarajevo, 11/02/2015 – On behalf of 150 NGOs, TRIAL and its partner MyRight are sharing some key recommendations formulated by the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR). This relatively new instrument of the United Nations Human Rights Council scrutinizes every country and assesses their human rights track record. In November 2014, BiH received 167 recommendations submitted by other states, NGOs or UN agencies. With one voice, the organizations call on the government to accept these international recommendations and implement them with no delay.

After the UPR 1st cycle (2010), BiH accepted the recommendations to investigate, enable access to justice and provide reparations to victims of crimes and gross human rights violations committed during the war. However, four years later, NGOs conclude that none of these recommendations have been implemented yet and that the national human rights legal framework remains deficient. They also emphasize that the rights of wartime victims and their families, guaranteed by international agreements, are still not achieved and still violated 20 years after the war has ended. Similar recommendations, with a particular emphasis on the situation of women victims of sexual violence during the war, have thus been reiterated in November 2014 at the conclusion of the 2nd UPR cycle. BiH is now expected to publicly communicate which of the 167 recommendations it accepts.

Recalling their willingness to cooperate with the newly elected authorities, NGOs are yet concerned with the failure of the latter to bolster capacity for investigation and prosecution as well as support services for wartime victims and people with disabilities. “Ensuring the implementation of the national strategy for processing of war crimes cases, the adoption of laws on the rights of victims of torture, and comprehensive protection of witnesses and victims with psychological support at all levels – especially before, during and after the trial – is a matter of priority. Bosnia and Herzegovina must accept and implement the recommendations made in November 2014, now“, saysSelma Korjenić, TRIAL Head of program for the support of wartime sexual violence survivors, speaking on behalf of 19 organizations which, together with TRIAL, prepared and submitted the report to the UN Human Rights Council.

Speaking on behalf of 65 organizations of the MyRight network, Fikret Zuko drew attention that only two recommendations on the human rights of disabled persons have been accepted from the previous report and called on the authorities to involve disabled persons in the process of implementation of the recommendations.

“We, people with disabilities have the right to a dignified life, and we ask the institutions of government to create conditions and opportunities to realize the rights for health care, education, rehabilitation, employment, social security, family life as well as other citizens. It is the right moment for changes. Even if the new government is still under construction and its budgets are in development, I urge the authorities to include us as partners in all decision-making processes which are of interest for persons with disabilities, and to include us in budget resources that will contribute to the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities”, emphasizes Zuko.

According to the Human Rights Council in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the state has an inefficient system of justice, to which citizens have an unequal access. Law on free legal aid at a state level has not been approved and there is no guarantee as to when decision makers will consider this again. According to Snježana Ivandić Ninković, director of the Association for Democratic Initiatives on behalf of the Network Justice (a network of 65 NGOs which have participated in the preparation of the report on the situation of human rights in BiH), even though legal and institutional conditions for the independence of the judiciary are fulfilled, independence itself is challenged. The way it was funded, and the way the Constitutional Courts judges are appointed are the main reasons for that. Emphasizing as well that neither the Law on the High judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) nor the conflict of interest’s rulebook of members of the HJPC are adopted yet. “Amendments to the Law on Criminal Procedure of BiH have not been adopted, which is one of the main causes why hate crimes committed in BiH cannot be adequately prosecuted and award appropriate penalty to perpetrators” says Ivandić Ninković.

The final UPR report about the human rights situation in BiH will be adopted in March 2015. In this perspective, more than 150 non-governmental organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina call on the authorities to adopt all the recommendations and implement them without delay.

 

PDF Version

After ACAT (Action des Chrétiens pour l’abolition de la torture) was summoned to court by Morocco, 9 human rights NGOs are expressing their concern regarding criminal procedures against civilians who have filed torture complaints, and an NGO representing them.

More: Version in French

The United Nations delivered landmark decisions by giving justice to three conflict-era victims in Nepal. The decisions, rendered by one of the most prominent international human rights bodies, send a message of hope to the families of all victims of enforced disappearances and torture in the country. As widespread impunity still prevails in post-conflict Nepal, the Geneva-based NGO TRIAL welcomes this very encouraging step towards justice and urges Nepali authorities to comply with their international obligations without delay.

On 12 and 13 November 2014, the UN Human Rights Committee made public its decisions on the enforced disappearances of Tej Raj Bhandari, Gyanendra Tripathiand Jit Man Basnet. Each of them was forcibly arrested, tortured and disappeared by state security forces during the 1996-2006 civil war in Nepal. In its decisions, the UN holds the Nepalese government responsible for their enforced disappearance and torture. It further urges the authorities to carry out a thorough investigation into the cases, prosecute the culprits and grant appropriate reparations to the victims.

All three cases were submitted to the UN by TRIAL, a Geneva-based NGO that fights against impunity. These are the first Nepali cases won before the Human Rights Committee by the NGO, which has supported the victims and their relatives in their struggle for justice. For TRIAL and the many victims of human rights violations in Nepal, the three decisions represent an encouraging first step in the fight against impunity in post-war Nepal: “if Nepal wants to be perceived as a country governed by the rule of law, it must swiftly implement these decisions. Prosecuting the perpetrators and offering truth and redress to the victims or their families is already long overdue”, says Philip Grant, Director of TRIAL.

 

The victims

Bhandari, a retired teacher and social worker from Lamjung, was arrested by Nepalese security forces in 2001. Suspected of being a Maoist sympathizer, he was arbitrarily arrested and badly beaten by the Royal Nepal Army. Since that day he was never seen again, leaving his family grieving on his disappearance. For many years his son Ram Bhandari, a prominent human rights activist in Nepal, fought to obtain justice before national tribunals: “I kept filing complaints before national tribunals but all I obtained in return was silence and denial from the Nepalese authorities”.

Tripathi, a left wing activist, was illegally arrested in 2003 and was last seen a few months later in life-threatening conditions and with visible signs of torture at the Maharajgunj barracks, controlled by the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA).

Basnet, a journalist and human rights lawyer, was also disappeared, put in arbitrary detention and tortured by Nepalese security forces in 2004, allegedly because of his human rights activities. While Bhandari and Tripathi are still missing, Basnet was released after 258 days in incommunicado detention.

 

The UN decision: hope for the victims of enforced disappearances

The UN decisions send a clear warning to Nepalese authorities, which too often dismiss the plights of victims of enforced disappearances. In the framework of the proceedings before the Committee, the Nepalese authorities claimed they could not consider the cases before the transitional justice mechanisms were put in place. The UN rejected this argument and urged the government to deliver justice to the victims. The Government is also required to widely publicize the decision in Nepali, and to report to the Committee within 180 days.

The victims’ relatives trust “this decision will put pressure on the government to look into the many cases of enforced disappearances and inform all the families about the whereabouts of their beloved ones”. Ram Bhandari added that: “In this long wait for justice, we will not step back without knowing the truth.”

 

Background information

The conflict in Nepal claimed the lives of more than 13,200 people and displaced over 100,000. During this decade-long civil war, serious human rights violations were carried out both by state security forces and Maoist rebels. Among the many crimes committed, more than 1,300 people were subject to enforced disappearance. Since then, perpetrators of such crimes have enjoyed an overall climate on impunity. On their side, Nepalese authorities turn a blind eye on these severe violations and too often dismiss the claims of victims.

Since 2009, TRIAL works on Nepal to help victims of serious human rights violations obtain justice and reparation. To this day, the NGO has offered legal assistance to more than 100 victims in Nepal and submitted 14 cases to the UN.

 

  • Gyanendra Tripathi
  • Jit Man Basnet

In December 2014, TRIAL and a coalition of eight civil society associations from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador submitted an alternative report to the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED) in view of the forthcoming exam of Mexico’s official report, which will take place in February 2015 in Geneva. The alternative report provides answers to the questions previously formulated by the CED in its list of issues and focuses mainly on the subject of enforced disappearance of migrants in Mexico and highlights the existence of several pitfalls in the existing legislation, which does not respect the obligations established by the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

In November 2014, TRIAL and 13 local associations working with women victims of rape or other forms of sexual violence during the war submitted a follow-up report to the Special Rapporteur to assess the level of implementation of her recommendations. Unfortunately, much remains to be done to fully guarantee access to justice and redress to women who were subjected to sexual violence during the war.

REDRESS, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Track Impunity Always (TRIAL) are launching today, 29 October 2014, a new report, Driving Forward Justice: Victims of Serious International Crimes in the EU, in the margins of the 17th EU Genocide Network meeting in The Hague.

Proceedings in EU Member States which concern serious international crimes underscore the important role played by victims. Victims are key to identifying suspects, lodging complaints, opening investigations and contributing substantially to the cases.

The report highlights how the EU Directive on minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, which all EU Members States must incorporate into national law, applies to victims of serious international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and enforced disappearance.

The EU Directive explains what rights victims have when coming into contact with investigators, prosecutors and other national authorities. Most Member States have a long way to go to put in place the necessary safeguards for victims of crime that are required by the Directive. Member States’ laws and practices need particular strengthening when dealing with victims of serious international crimes. In our report, we make a series of recommendations, in line with the Directive, to assist authorities to bridge these gaps.

 Victims’ rights under the EU Directive

The Directive establishes several guarantees for victims of crimes. The report highlights the following:

  • the right to support, for which the Directive sets out a new framework
  • the right to be protected during both investigation and prosecution stages of criminal proceedings, as well as an overarching right to privacy
  • the right to be heard
  • the right to be informed throughout the proceedings, beginning in the investigation phase and continuing after the trial concludes
  • the right to reimbursement of expenses
  • the right to a decision on compensation by the offender within a reasonable time.

 

The report also underscores how these guarantees must be applied to victims of serious international crimes and points out the areas in which the Directive’s scope must be broadened to account for the additional challenges faced by such victims. This is particularly important with regard to the right to be heard, as the Directive currently provides a wide margin of appreciation to Member States.

The report will be presented at a conference on the rights of victims of serious international crimes, hosted by the four organisations in The Hague.

In October 2014, TRIAL and three international and local organizations submitted an additional note of allegations to the Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Reparations and Guarantees of Non-recurrence and to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to update them on alarming developments, including the flight of a war criminal, related to the automatic retrial without remand of persons already sentenced for war crimes.