Author: Communication Department

Rights Groups File Complaint Asking France to Investigate Saudi Crown Prince over Jamal Khashoggi Killing

Mohammed bin Salman accused of torture and enforced disappearance of journalist

(Paris, July 28, 2022) Following a criminal complaint filed today, French authorities should open an investigation against visiting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) for the torture and killing of exiled Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), and TRIAL International said today.

Bin Salman is in Paris, France for meetings with President Emmanuel Macron.

DAWN, a group created by Khashoggi in June 2018, three months before his murder, filed a 42-page complaint on July 28 before the Paris tribunal arguing that MBS is an accomplice to the torture and enforced disappearance of Khashoggi from the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018 and that these are crimes subject to domestic prosecution in France.

The complaint, also supported by the OSJI and co-filed by TRIAL International, said that Bin Salman does not have immunity from prosecution because as crown prince he is not the head of state.  The groups also argued that Bin Salman had pressured Turkey to drop prosecutions against Saudi officials for the Khashoggi killing, and that a trial held against unnamed defendants in Saudi Arabia for the killing was a sham, leaving France as one of the only venues for justice.

“French authorities should immediately open a criminal investigation against Mohammed bin Salman for his role in the gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of DAWN. “As a party to the UN Conventions against Torture and Enforced Disappearances, France is obliged to investigate a suspect such as Bin Salman if he is present on French territory.”

Khashoggi, a columnist with the Washington Post, wrote critically about the Saudi crown prince’s crackdown on expression and dissent within the kingdom. The groups alleged that Saudi officials, acting under Bin Salman’s orders, dismembered Khashoggi‘s body with a bone saw after luring him to their consulate in Istanbul.

The US Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) report into the murder, released by the Biden administration, concluded that MBS ordered the murder. Then United Nations Rapporteur on Summary Executions Agnès Callamard made a similar finding. After his meeting with Bin Salman in July, President Biden said that he had confronted the crown prince about Khashoggi’s murder and told him that he held him personally responsible for Khashoggi’s murder.

Bin Salman is also facing a civil lawsuit over the murder brought in the United States by DAWN and Khashoggi’s fiance, Hatice Cengiz.

French law recognizes “universal jurisdiction” for torture and enforced disappearances. This means that judicial authorities are empowered – and in the case of torture and enforced disappearances, required – to investigate and prosecute these crimes no matter where they were committed, and regardless of the nationality of the suspects or their victims, as long as the suspect is in French territory.

“France played such an important role in the adoption of the United Nations Convention for the Protection of All Persons from  Enforced Disappearance,” said Philip Grant, Executive Director of TRIAL International. “The time has come for France to live up to the standards it fought so hard to promote and to seriously tackle impunity for such crimes.”

Universal jurisdiction cases are an increasingly important part of international efforts to hold those responsible for atrocities accountable, provide justice to victims who have nowhere else to turn, deter future crimes, and help ensure that countries do not become safe havens for human rights abusers, the groups said.

“The deliberate killing of Jamal Khashoggi was the capstone of an ongoing wave of repression unleashed by Mohammed bin Salman against Saudi civil society that has included arbitrary detention, torture, state-sponsored murder, and enforced disappearance,” said James A. Goldston, executive director of the Justice Initiative. “By meeting with the crown prince on French soil, while Saudi dissidents remain wrongfully detained, trapped in the country through travel bans, and targeted abroad, President Macron risks contributing to the dangerous normalization of a brutal man.”

Following Khashoggi’s murder, France and other Western countries imposed sanctions and travel bans on the 18 suspected of involvement in the murder.  Germany, France and the United Kingdom coordinated on the issuance of travel bans that applied across all 26 countries in the European border-free Schengen area. On October 20, 2018, then French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian condemned Khashoggi’s murder “in the strongest terms.” The French Foreign Ministry further stated that “the murder of Mr. Khashoggi is a crime of extreme gravity, which moreover goes against freedom of the press and the most fundamental rights.” Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo also canceled her participation in the U20 conference held in Saudi Arabia, along with several other mayors around the world.

However, unlike several other European countries, France didn’t ban the sale and shipment of arms to Saudi Arabia. On October 26, 2018, President Macron stated: “What’s the link between arms sales and Mr Khashoggi’s murder? …  there is no link with Mister Khashoggi.” On March 25, 2019, the French Ambassador to Germany, Anne-Marie Descotes warned the German government against the “politicization” of arms sales that might jeopardize joint ventures for jets, drones, and tanks. During the 2014-18 period, France was the third largest supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia, behind the United States and the United Kingdom. In 2019, less than one year after the murder, France transferred $1.7 billion worth of arms exports to Saudi Arabia and has continued annually selling it billions in weapons. In June 2022, NGOs filed a criminal complaint against French arms companies for these arms sales, citing France’s complicity in war crimes in Yemen.

DAWN and TRIAL International are represented by French lawyer Henri Thulliez.

For More Information

Sarah Leah Whitson (DAWN) in New York, swhitson@dawnmena.org or +1-718-213-7342, Twitter: @sarahleah1 (English, Arabic, Armenian)

James A. Goldston (OSJI) in New York, media@opensocietyfoundations.org or +1-917-862-2937, Twitter: @OSFJustice, @JamesAGoldston

Henri Thulliez in Paris, henri.thulliez@gmail.com (French, English)

Reed ​Brody (DAWN) in Carcassonne +1 917-388-6745 (WhatsApp) or  +34 683 223 642 (telephone)  or reedbrody@gmail.com (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese)

Philip Grant (TRIAL International) in Geneva, media@trialinternational.org, Twitter: @Trial (English, French, German)

Read the statement

TRIAL: 20 years on the way to justice

On June 6, 2002, twenty  human rights activists, lawyers and victims of torture gathered in an underground room at the Maison des associations in Geneva to launch TRIAL (Track Impunity Always as it was then called, until it took the name TRIAL International in 2016).

I was elected the first president of this new association, whose initial goal was to try to reproduce the famous Pinochet precedent, which in 1998 saw the former Chilean president arrested in London at the request of a Spanish judge, on charges of massive human rights violations committed during his reign. The initial idea was to launch a legal association that would use this precedent to lodge criminal complaints against torturers passing through or living in Switzerland.

Needless to say, it certainly did not occur to any of the people present that evening to imagine that 20 years later, the association would not only still exist, but would become, if not the principal, then at least one of the most effective and respected NGOs active in the fight against impunity.

During its first five years of existence, with no real budget and no permanent staff, TRIAL nevertheless undertook multiple activities. In particular, in the early days, the association conducted information campaigns on recent developments in international justice. Apart from interested circles, international justice was still a relatively new idea, but an idea whose time had come: indeed, the International Criminal Court (ICC) would open its doors a few weeks after TRIAL’s creation (thus allowing us to boast that of the two, we are the more senior institution).

Among the first activities of the organisation were the creation of a website, which was quite a precursor at the time (it offered information in no less than… 7 languages, including a database, Trial Watch, which would in time allow access to more than 1200 international crimes proceedings), the organisation of several colloquiums, the preparation of numerous public happenings, and the publication of a first legal manual on how to use Swiss law to fight impunity.

In the early years, we also launched the Swiss Coalition for the ICC, of which TRIAL was the secretariat for many years, and pushed for the implementation of the ICC Statute into Swiss law to make the prosecution of international crimes a little less complicated.

It was this early activism that earned us some recognition, including the human rights prize from the Geneva newspaper, Le Courrier, and later the prestigious “Genève reconnaissante” medal.

But obviously, it was the legal work that was most important to us, and the will to put ourselves at the service of the victims of the most serious crimes. Unfortunately, during the first years, despite the fact that we were able to locate in Switzerland a sizeable number of suspects from Tunisia, Algeria, Somalia or Afghanistan, the prosecuting authorities seemed to have little motivation to seriously open any criminal proceedings, which led us on some occasions to go as far as to demonstrate publicly in front of the hotel where a notorious torturer was staying.

2007: the turning point

Starting in 2007, the organisation began to secure some small funding, allowing us to finally hire staff. That year, I myself reduced my activities in the law firm where I was a partner, and started working for TRIAL part-time, before becoming fully involved in the organisation’s management in 2009, and thus putting an end to my law practice.

2007 was indeed a pivotal year: it was on that year that we inaugurated our first local branch, in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The initial contacts we had made there with a number of victims’ associations convinced us that there was a huge lack of expertise and an overwhelming need for justice, still very much alive today. Reaching out to victims’ associations from all sides of the conflict, we first worked on the topic of missing persons, before investing a great deal of energy in the fight against conflict-related sexual violence, managing to obtain numerous and lasting results, by cooperating with prosecuting authorities, succeeding in getting legislative changes passed, but also accompanying victims during criminal proceedings, obtaining in the process extremely innovative jurisprudence, which have since paved the way for a whole series of trials.

After Bosnia, we subsequently opened offices or country programs in Nepal, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, hiring on the ground only professionals from the countries concerned, so that in due time, we could leave sufficient expertise on the field to take over when our mission came to an end.

From then on, TRIAL’s activities and mode of operation changed considerably, as the fight for justice moved closer to the affected communities. A great effort was made to support and accompany multiple local actors, lawyers, human rights activists, as well as judges and prosecutors. At the same time, we developed a strong legal advocacy work, notably with the United Nations, and started to bring cases before national and international bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and several UN committees.

In Switzerland, our efforts were directed towards advocating for the modification of the Criminal Code, at a time when the authorities have finally woken up to bringing Swiss law into conformity with the ICC Statute, and to get rid of legislative hurdles that made prosecutions complicated, if not outright impossible. This work has borne fruit, even if the authorities’ promises to set up a specialized unit to prosecute international crimes have for many years not resulted in the expected investigations and trials.

From 2011 onwards, TRIAL also began to professionalise the way in which it carried out its investigations: a growing number of cases would eventually soon take us to Guatemala, Rwanda, Colombia and elsewhere, leading to the filing of numerous criminal complaints in Switzerland, based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. In the field as well, in particular in the DRC and Bosnia, criminal proceedings would gradually unfold at an increasing pace, leading to more and more important results. The organisation eventually took part in dozens of proceedings, in Switzerland and abroad, which often concerned senior civilian or military officials, including several ministers, a former police chief, commanders of armed groups, and senior army officers.

These numerous legal victories will lead to an increased recognition of the credibility of the organisation, in particular its work as a precursor in the use of the principle of universal jurisdiction; its relentless action against conflict-related sexual violence; the obtaining of multiple innovative jurisprudences, before various national or international bodies; and its growing and impacting work on the issue of the corporate responsibility.

All of this has led TRIAL to be solicited for increasingly frequent interventions in the media, to be the object of a 2014 documentary («Chasseurs de crimes») and even to be offered the chance to intervene in 2019 before no less than the United Nations Security Council.

The impact of 20 years dedicated to the fight against impunity is difficult to summarise in a formula or through a single example. A few figures will perhaps allow, albeit imperfectly, to illustrate the path taken over the last 20 years and to highlight, or rather condense, the work of TRIAL International.

In 20 years, TRIAL International has:
– represented more than 6,600 victims before national and international courts, including more than 1,200 victims of conflict-related sexual violence
– trained or coached more than 2,400 lawyers, human rights activists and judges
– participated in nearly 50 criminal trials that resulted in guilty verdicts against 86 perpetrators, often high-ranking military, rebel group commanders, and high-ranking police officers
– obtained that hundreds of thousand, if not millions, of dollars in reparations are awarded to the victims we have defended
– obtained nearly 110 positive decisions in cases submitted to various UN bodies such as the Committee against Torture, the Human Rights Committee, and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, regarding international crimes committed in Bosnia, DRC, Tunisia, Burundi, Nepal, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, and Russia.

All these results, and so many others, are the result of a huge team effort.

TRIAL has been able to count on dozens of Board members, some of whom have been involved for 10 or 12 years (pictured here are some of the members in office in 2018).

Most importantly, the organisation’s work has relied on the personal commitment and professionalism of more than 200 colleagues and dozens of interns and volunteers.

Last but not least, during these 20 years, the organisation has been able to count on the trust and support of hundreds of members, donors and funders.

To all of them, to all of you, a huge thank you.

And a promise: the fight for justice continues!

Philip Grant, Geneva, June 6, 2022

United Nations recognizes Nepal’s responsibility on the torture and extra-judicial killing of a minor in 2004

Will the Nepalese government take responsibility for the death of 15-year-old Anil, and implement the UN’s decisions? Nothing is less certain.

Geneva/Kathmandu, the 24 of May 2022 – 18 years after Anil Chaudhary’s assassination in 2004, at the age of fifteen, his family can finally begin to heal and look peacefully towards the future. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) issued its decision on may 20th, following a complaint submitted by TRIAL International and its Nepali partner the Human Rights and Justice Center, representing the young boy’s parents. Nepal has been found responsible for the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the torture and the extra-judicial execution of Anil, who was targeted for being a member of the Tharu indigenous community.

The HRC firmly requested that the Nepalese government effectively investigate the circumstances of Anil’s death, identify, try and punish the perpetrators, issue an official apology to Anil’s parents and build a memorial in Anil’s name, to restore his and his family’s dignity and reputation. Nepal should also publicly acknowledge the state’s responsibility, amend domestic legislation, especially with regard to the applicable statutes of limitation for torture, offer psychological as well as medical care to the family and finally compensate the damages suffered, the UN body said. However, this decision does not mean that Nepal will actually implement the HRC’s recommendations, since, until now, similar decisions have largely remained ineffective. Impunity still prevails in the country and victims continue to struggle to obtain truth, justice and reparations.

A long road towards justice

Anil Chaudhary, member of the ethnic minority of the Tharus, was only fifteen when he was arbitrary killed in 2004 by a group of Nepalese security officers, while he was biking with his neighbor, not far from his home in the village of Fattepur. The two young boys were falsely accused of being linked to the Maoists, and were interrogated, beaten and tortured before being coldly executed. Since then, Anil’s parents have fought to obtain justice by filing complaints with different Nepalese authorities, in vain.

Anil’s parents with the help of TRIAL International and the Kathmandu-based Human Rights and Justice Center submitted a complaint to the HRC on 28 March 2018. It was alleged that the boy was the victim of arbitrary arrest, torture and extrajudicial execution committed by Nepalese security officers. These acts were allegedly committed on a discriminatory ground based on his ethnicity and were aggravated by the fact that he was a minor. TRIAL International and its partner have asked the HRC to establish that Nepal had violated Anil’s rights and to order it, amongst other things, to investigate his death, to hold the perpetrators accountable for their acts and to provide Anil’s parents with adequate pecuniary compensation, commensurate to the damage suffered.

A long-awaited decision allowing international recognition, but with an uncertain impact

The HRC’s decision puts an end to Anil’s parents’ 18-year long quest for justice.

Nira Tharuni, Anil’s mother said: “I am happy that there is a decision on Anil’s case from the United Nations. It is imperative that the Government implements the decision and punishes the culprits. Anil’s sufferings worries me a lot and the culprits keep coming to my mind even today. I will never forget; I can’t ever forget. I want to see them punished.”

However, the risk remains that the Nepalese government will once again play deaf to the recommendations and decisions of the HRC and that Anil’s family never obtains justice nor reparations.

Salina Kafle, Executive Director of the Human Rights and Justice Center explains: “The decision of the Committee not only reaffirms the rampant torture and extrajudicial killing of indigenous minors during the conflict in Nepal but also denounces the insufficiency and ineffectiveness of the national legal mechanisms to address such killings. Among others, the decision also calls the State to prevent the occurrence of similar violations in the future, including by amending domestic legislation and statutes of limitations in accordance with international standards. If the recommendations by the HRC are well addressed by Nepal, the victims would feel closer to justice.”

While all the measures indicated by the HRC must be implemented, it is clear that the enforcement of some of them will take time. However, some measures can and should be implemented without delay. It is for instance crucial that Nepal quickly identifies an authority in charge of the process of implementation of the Committee’s decision and maintains contacts with Anil’s parents and their representatives, to establish an acceptable timeline.

A particular context

For Nepal, the path to justice for the victims of the civil war which ravaged the country between 1996 and 2006 is still long. Around 13’000 died during the conflict, with many more victims and survivors of other crimes such as torture, enforced disappearance, sexual violence, committed both by governmental forces and Maoist insurgents.

Anil Chaudhary’s case emerged from that context. During the war, arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial executions were systemic. The events related to this case took place in Bardiya district, a place particularly touched by the conflict. The Tharu people, including women and children, were often associated with Maoists and targeted by security forces.

A lingering feeling of impunity, stifling all hope for justice in a scarred country

The creation in 2015 of a Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared persons (CIEDP) and of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) represented a hope for conflict victims to be heard, and that a genuine transitional justice system would emerge in Nepal. Unfortunately, seven years after, the outcome is rather regrettable and no tangible results were obtained. Moreover, the transitional justice process as a whole, including the underlying legislation, is at odds with international standards, as affirmed also by the Nepalese Supreme Court in a decision delivered in 2015. That decision has not been implemented either.

Impunity remains rampant in the country and the fact that both domestic and international decisions are not enforced is exacerbating the suffering of hundreds of victims across the country and undermining trust vis-à-vis institutions and the rule of law.

Media contact

TRIAL International, Geneva, Switzerland

Olivia Gerig, Communication and media relation manager

o.gerig@trialinternational.com

+41 22 519 03 96

Human Rights and Justice Center, Lalitpur, Nepal

Salina Kafle

Executive Director (Kathamandu)

s.kafle@hrjc.org.np

+ 977 984 175 25 27

Geneva, the 23rd of May 2022 – In the framework of the European day against impunity for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, TRIAL International, in collaboration with the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), REDRESS, Civitas Maxima, Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) and Bruxelles Free University, publishes three new “Universal Jurisdiction Law and Practice Briefing Papers”, on Belgium, the United States as well as England and Wales. Those new reports are completing the eight pre-exiting papers on Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and The Netherlands. Those documents will provide legal practitioners and civil society actors with an in-depth analysis of national laws and practices of domestic authorities regarding investigations and prosecution of international crimes under universal jurisdiction. They help understanding this principle which has become a particularly useful weapon nowadays to fight impunity.

Universal jurisdiction: a powerful tool against impunity

An historical ruling in Germany against a high-ranking Syrian in January 2022, on-going trials in at least 16 different jurisdictions in 2021, investigations launched by 13 countries on the crimes committed in Ukraine since the beginning of the conflict: those results and so many others are made possible because of the use of universal jurisdiction. It allows the pursuit of alleged perpetrators of international crimes such as genocides, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, whatever the place where those crimes were committed, whatever the nationality of the victims or the authors to be prosecuted. Each country then delineates the scope of this competency.

“Universal jurisdiction is an important and increasingly used tool to fight against impunity of international crimes. Laws and practices can vary between countries which makes the use and understanding of this principal quite complex. The reports produced by TRIAL International, in collaboration with our partners, intend to assist lawyers and professionals in the different judicial systems”, says Giulia Soldan, Program Manager (International Investigations and Litigation).

Essential tools to strengthen the knowledge and practice of universal jurisdiction

Born in 2019 as a collaboration between TRIAL International and OSJI, “Universal Jurisdiction Law and Practice” briefing papers have become benchmark documents for professionals of the fight against impunity through universal jurisdiction. The goal of those reports is to support lawyers and NGOs representing the victims of international crimes to seek justice in a country where they know nothing of the law nor the current procedures.

The three new publications analyze the systems and practices of England and Wales, the United States and Belgium. Built out of interviews with legal experts, prosecutors and specialized scholars, and an analysis of the legal texts, those reports contribute to the development of adapted and efficient judicial strategies. The report focusing on the United States was developed in collaboration with CJA as well as the participation of Civitas Maxima, the document on England and Wales was drawn from the collaboration with REDRESS, and finally the one focusing on Belgium was written with the Bruxelles Free University.

Media Contact

Olivia Gerig, Communication and media relation Manager

o.gerig@trialinternational.com

+41 78 683 52 66

EU: Bolster Justice Efforts Worldwide

EU Day Against Impunity Highlights Prospects, Challenges

(Brussels, May 23, 2022) – The European Union (EU) and its member states should take concrete steps to strengthen the international justice system, including through national prosecutions of crimes under international law, 10 human rights groups said today. Member states should expand the reach of justice by adopting necessary laws, creating or reinforcing specialized war crimes units, strengthening cooperation among states, and providing greater financial and political support to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other accountability mechanisms so they can impartially carry out their work.

The civil society organizations are Amnesty International, the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), Civitas Maxima, the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Human Rights Watch, the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), REDRESS, and TRIAL International. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court, of which these groups are members, also endorsed the statement. The groups issued this statement on the European Union Day Against Impunity, observed in The Hague on May 23, 2022, and organized by the French presidency of the Council of the EU, together with the European Commission, the EU Genocide Network, and Eurojust.

“This year’s EU Day Against Impunity shines a spotlight on the fact that much more is needed to effectively address grave human rights violations around the world,” said Balkees Jarrah, interim international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “EU countries should work together to extend principled support for accountability for atrocities not just in Ukraine but in other conflicts where civilians suffer widespread abuses.”

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, EU countries and other governments have worked to engage a range of accountability tools to ensure the prosecution of grave crimes committed in the context of that conflict. The EU has also made clear that it supports all measures to ensure justice for serious crimes, wherever they take place. The European Union and its member states should build on this unprecedented support for accountability for crimes committed in Ukraine to strengthen the cause of justice worldwide, the human rights groups said.

Governments and international judicial bodies have initiated a number of accountability efforts in response to the crimes in Ukraine. On March 2, the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor announced the opening of a formal investigation following the request of a group of ICC member countries. Authorities in countries including France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden have opened their own criminal investigations under the principle of universal jurisdiction. On March 4, the UN Human Rights Council voted to establish an international commission of inquiry to document war crimes and human rights abuses. The EU has expressed its support for all of these mechanisms to investigate and gather evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine.

Following his decision to open a Ukraine investigation, the ICC prosecutor called on the court’s member countries to provide his office with resources to support its work across all situations under investigation at the court through voluntary contributions and gratis personnel. Several EU member countries have since announced that they will provide the court with additional financial and human resources outside the ICC’s regular budget.

While the positive response of ICC member countries to the prosecutor’s request signals a commitment to justice, it also reflects an acknowledgment that the court does not have the resources necessary to fulfill its mandate, the groups said. The making of these recent pledges by ICC member countries in the context of one specific situation also risks perceptions of politicization and selectivity in the court’s work, which could undermine its legitimacy.

ICC member countries should adopt a principled approach to ensure that the court has long-term funding and sufficient resources in the context of its regular budget to prosecute serious crimes effectively and independently across all its organs, programs, and activities.

With the Ukraine investigation, the number of open country situations under investigation before the court has risen to 16 – including an investigation into crimes committed during the 2008 war in Georgia . Other ongoing investigations relate to serious international crimes committed around the world, including in Bangladesh/Myanmar, Sudan, and Palestine.

“The fact that the court’s workload has outpaced its resources is nothing new: this is an institutional problem that requires an institutional solution by bolstering the court’s regular budget, rather than relying on voluntary contributions,” said Melinda Reed, acting convener of the coalition for the ICC. “It’s clear that states’ chronic underfunding of the ICC over the years has negatively impacted the court’s effectiveness and delayed victims’ access to justice.”

All EU member countries are parties to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty. The EU should work to expand the reach of the court by engaging other countries such as Ukraine, the United States, Libya, South Sudan, and Sudan to ratify the treaty and become members of the ICC. Currently, 123 out of 193 UN member states are court members. Universality of the Rome Statute would extend legal protection to victims of international crimes globally and help ensure that those responsible for the most serious crimes cannot avoid the reach of the law.

The EU Day Against Impunity is taking place during ongoing crises around the world that have led to the arrival, in European countries, of people fleeing conflict zones in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This situation has created a unique opportunity for judicial authorities in European states to make a meaningful contribution to justice for the atrocities in these countries. The increased presence of refugees and asylum seekers means that previously unavailable victims, witnesses, material evidence, and even some suspects are now within reach of national judicial authorities.

In recent years, the national courts of an increasing number of countries, largely in EU member states, have pursued cases under the principle of universal jurisdiction involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed abroad. In January, a German court convicted a former Syrian intelligence officer for crimes against humanity and sentenced him to life in prison in a first case of this kind. Other cases in European courts have involved crimes committed in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, and Gambia, among others.

Universal jurisdiction cases are an increasingly important part of international efforts to hold those responsible for atrocities accountable, provide justice to victims who have nowhere else to turn, deter future crimes, and help ensure that countries do not become safe havens for human rights abusers, the groups said. However, increased demands on national judicial authorities highlight the need for further improvements to ensure effective national prosecutions of grave international crimes.

Recognizing the important role of EU member states in ending impunity, the EU, in 2002 and 2003, adopted two decisions creating a network of investigators and prosecutors working on cases involving crimes under international law, the European Genocide Network; and recommending that member states create specialized war crimes units. Several EU countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, France, and Germany, have created such war crimes units, made up of police and prosecutors with specific expertise and dedicated to these cases. The EU Genocide Network has enhanced cooperation and facilitated the sharing of best practices between EU member states.

Not all EU member states have national laws defining crimes under international law, and some lack jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes when committed abroad, leaving impunity gaps within the EU. Only a minority of EU member states have set up specialized war crimes units, and more should consider doing so, the groups said. Even in the countries that have war crimes units, they are often understaffed and under-resourced with just a handful of investigators and prosecutors despite a mounting number of cases.

EU governments should ensure that their police and prosecution services are adequately resourced and staffed and provide them with ongoing training to address the range of situations where serious crimes are ongoing.

“The increasing number of universal jurisdiction cases across Europe shows that investigations and prosecutions of serious crimes by national courts are possible with the right tools in place,” said Philip Grant, executive director of TRIAL International. “Effective and impartial justice for serious crimes is achievable where there is the right combination of appropriate laws, adequate resources, institutional commitment, and political will.”

For TRIAL International’s monitoring of universal jurisdiction, please visit:  https://trialinternational.org/universal-jurisdiction-tools/

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on international justice, please visit:
https://www.hrw.org/topic/international-justice

For more information, please contact:

For TRIAL International, Giulia Soldan (English, French, Italian): +41-78-806-08-26 (mobile); or g.soldan@trialinternational.org. Twitter: @Trial

For Human Rights Watch, Balkees Jarrah (English, Arabic): +1-202-841-7398 (mobile); or jarrahb@hrw.org. Twitter: @balkeesjarrah

For the Coalition for the ICC, Virginie Amato (English, French, Spanish): +32-485-193-469; or amato@coalitionfortheicc.org. Twitter: @VirginieAmato

For ECCHR, Maria Bause (English, German): presse@ecchr.eu. Twitter: @ECCHRBerlin

For Civitas Maxima, Rebecca Senior (English, French): rebecca.senior@civitas-maxima.org. Twitter: @Civitas_Maxima

For FIDH, Raphaël Lopoukhine (English, French, Spanish, Russian): +33-672-284-294; or rlopoukhine@fidh.org.

As the Gambian government is working on finalising in the coming weeks the white paper that will provide the roadmap for the implementation of the TRRC recommendations, 16 Gambian and international human rights organizations, including TRIAL International, raised some of their hopes and concerns in a joint open letter.

Read the letter

Geneva, April 21, 2022.

Berlin, April 21, 2022.