This month:

• Domestic prosecutions for core international crimes

Why domestic prosecutions are key

The general misperception

In public debate it is up to international criminal tribunals to take care of fighting impunity for core international crimes. The succesful rise of ad hoc courts, such as the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugolsavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) in the 1990’s may be responsible for this perception.

However. As the International Criminal Court (ICC) demonstrates: these institutions are merely a means of last resort. They are, in other words, complementary to national jurisdictions and are only provided with jurisdiction when countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute cases. Furthermore, these tribunals are vulnerable to political influences.

If, like in the case of the crimes committed in Syria, the United Nations Security Council can’t agree to refer a situation to the ICC, or to establish an ad-hoc court, international justice might be stalled.

Finally, we have seen that several states have decided not to sign up to the Rome Statute and thus do not accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. The United States have even decided to undermine the international criminal court by putting sanctions on ICC officials and persons or entities that cooperate with them.

The bottom line

This is why domestic criminal investigations and prosecutions of core international crimes are and will remain the main road to establish international criminal justice.

The future: building on collective knowledge

In recent years, some intergovernmental organisations have contributed to help further domestic capacity building efforts. To name some:

• Eurojust Genocide Network
• Europol’s Analysis Project Core International Crimes
• War Crimes and Genocide unit/sub-directorate of INTERPOL

Besides this institutionalized approach, several non-governmental organizations have put effort in describing the current state of art and/or best-practices of several countries known for their efforts to combat impunity for core international crimes. Some of these reports can even be viewed as a semi-independent audit on established practices. Together they may both lay the foundation/blueprint for any country that wants to set up specialized units and form a rich source for a critical review of established domestic practice.

Some known series on domestic criminal investigations and prosecutions for core international crimes:

• Amnesty International: No Safe Haven Series (Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Venezuela)
• Syria Justice & Accountability Centre: guides to national prosecutions for crimes committed in Syria (Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom)
• Trial-Open Society Justice Initiative:  Universal Jurisdiction Law and Practice series (Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland)
• Human Rights Watch: The Long Arm of Justice. Lessons from Specialized Wart Crimes Units in France, Germany and the Netherlands.

The questionmark

If national jurisdictions are to establish effective and efficient procedures, a blueprint derived from these publications may well be of interest for the global community. Even more so when they seek to avoid reinventing the wheel and aim to maximize their output, while limiting the required -and often rare- capacity to establish robust strategies that build upon collective knowledge.

Would it be an idea to build an overall cross-sector strategic plan or blueprint for domestic jurisdictions?