Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:44:10.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosecutor v. Frans van Anraat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Marten Zwanenburg  and
Guido den Dekker
Marten Zwanenburg
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Guido den Dekker
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 104 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 86 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wartime Offences Act of 1952 [Wet Oorlogsstrafrecht], July 10, 1952, Stb. 1952, 408 (Neth.) [hereinafter WOS]. The relevant part of Article 8 states: “He who violates the laws and customs of war shall be punished Note that translations from the Dutch are by the authors. The current versions of the Dutch Acts and Codes mentioned in this case report are available online at http://wetten.overheid.nl.

2 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, June 30, 2009, Case No. 07/10742. Materials for this and other Dutch cases are available online at http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/default.aspx (Landelijk Jurisprudentie Nummer (LJN) [National Jurisprudence Number] for van Anraat Supreme Court judgment: BG4822).

3 See, e.g., Harmen, G. van der Wilt, Genocide, Complicity in Genocide and International v. Domestic Jurisdiction, Reflections on the van Anraat Case, 4 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 239, 240 (2006)Google Scholar.

4 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, June 17, 1925, 26 UST 571, 94 LNTS 65 [hereinafter Geneva Protocol].

5 Geneva Convention [No. IV] Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Art. 147, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287 [hereinafter Article 147].

6 Geneva Convention [No. I] for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3114, 75 UNTS 31; Geneva Convention [No. II] for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85; Geneva Convention [No. III] Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135; Geneva Convention [No. IV], supra note 5, Art. 3 [hereinafter common Article 3].

7 Arrondissementsrechtbank den Haag [District Court of The Hague], Dec. 23, 2005, Case No. 09/751003–04, 2006 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie Feitenrechtspraak Strafzaken 89, para. 21 (LJN: AV6353).

8 Gerechtsh of den Haag [Court of Appeal of The Hague], May 9, 2007, Case No. 09/751003–04, 2007 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie Feitenrechtspraak Strafzaken 183, para. 20 (LJN: BA4676 (or BA6734 for English version)) [hereinafter Gerechtshof].

9 Like many other national legal systems, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands does not review the facts of the case. Its review is limited to verifying, on the basis of the appeal, whether the lower court has made an error in law or in respect to important technicalities, primarily serious flaws in the reasoning of the judgment. The Supreme Court either upholds or annuls the lower court’s judgment. In an annulment, a lower court must deliver a new judgment, taking the Supreme Court judgment into account.

10 Prosecutor v. Darko Knezević, Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Nov. 11, 1997, Case No. 3717, 1998 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 463, 30 Neth. Y.B. Int’l L. 315 (1999).

11 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 7, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 UNTS 221 [hereinafter ECHR].

12 Act on the Judicial System [Wet op de Rechterlijke Organisatie], Art. 79(2), Apr. 18, 1827, Stb. 1827, 20 (as amended).

13 Gerechtshof, supra note 8, para. 18.

14 Articles 332–37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Wetboek van Strafvordering], Jan. 15, 1921, Stb. 1921, 14, were applicable at the time the crimes were committed.

15 Act Supplementing the Code of Criminal Law, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Code of Provisions for Compensation for Violent Crimes, and other codes containing provisions for victims of crimes [Wet tot aanvulling van het Wetboek van Strafrecht, het Wetboek van Strafvordering, de Wet voorlopige regeling schadefonds geweldsmisdrijven en andere wetten met voorzieningen ten behoeve van slachtoffers van strafbare feiten], Dec. 23, 1993, Stb. 1993, 29 [hereinafter Supplemental Act].

16 Gerechtshof, supra note 8, para. 18.

17 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 15, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171.

18 Cf. Neth. Const, art. 16 (“No offence shall be punishable unless it was an offence under the law at the time it was committed.”).

19 Machteld, Boot, Nullum Crimen Sine Lege and The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of The International Criminal Court: Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and War Crimes 613 (2002)Google Scholar.

20 Kamerstukken II [Parliamentary Papers, Second Chamber] 1951/52, 2258, nr. 3, 9.

21 International Crimes Act [Wet Internationale Misdrijven], June 19, 2003, Stb. 2003, 270 [hereinafter WIM].

22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 8, July 17, 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 [hereinafter ICC Statute].

23 WIM, supra note 21, Art. 7.

24 Kamerstukken II [Parliamentary Papers, Second Chamber] 2001/02, 28337, nr. 3, 46.

25 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Art. 35(2), June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 3.

26 Gerechtshof, supra note 8, para. 8 (setting forth “conclusive evidence which proves that the defendant has committed the offences . . . in a (non–international and/or international) armed conflict”).

27 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, Art. 35(2), Jan. 13, 1993, S. Treaty Doc. No. 103–21 (1993), 32 ILM 800 (1993).

28 Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: Rules 261–63 (Jean–Marie Henckaem & Louise Doswald–Beck eds., 2005) only mentions that in 1995—in the ICTY Tadic case—the international community apparently condemned Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. The relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council only relate to the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq. See SC Res. 598 (July 20, 1987); SC Res. 612 (May 9,1988); SC Res. 620 (Aug. 26,1988); see also Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non–International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 609, reprinted in 16 ILM 1442 (1977) (no prohibition of specific weapons).

29 The Advocate–General is formally part of the Office of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. His role includes providing objective and nonpartisan advice to the Supreme Court, as he did in this case.

30 See Max van der Stoel, Special Rapporteur, UN Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Iraq, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/45, H75, 25–27 (Feb. 19. 1993), and UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/58, H74, 36–43 (Feb. 25,1994). These reports were used as evidence in the case and were mentioned by the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of its judgment.

31 The methodology used by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 ICJ Rep. 226, 242, para. 29 (July 8), supports this assessment.

32 Supplemental Act, supra note 15.

33 Gerechtshof, supra note 8, para. 18.

34 See Advocate–General’s Conclusions, para. 18.8 (annex to the Supreme Court judgment, supra note 2).

35 Id., para. 19.

36 Prosecutor v. Joseph Mpambara, Arrondissementsrechtbank den Haag, Mar. 23, 2009, Case Nos. 09/750009–06, 09/750009–07 (LJN: BI2444).

37 Id.

38 Another case—currently before the Supreme Court—that of Guus Kouwenhoven, accused of aiding the regime of Charles Taylor by trading arms used in the Liberian conflict, illustrates that serious efforts are being made. See Prosecutor v. Guus Kouwenhoven, Gerechtshof den Haag, Mar. 10, 2008, Case No. 09–750001–05 (LJN: BC6068) (case being appealed). In the same vein, a recent draft bill proposes to expand the possibilities in the Netherlands to investigate and prosecute international crimes, with emphasis on genocide. The draft bill and explanatory memorandum of October 6, 2009, are available (in Dutch) at http://www.justitie.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten/archief–2009/91006hirsch–ballin–zet–harder–in–op–vervolging–oorlogsmisdadigers.aspx?cp=34&cs=578.