Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:53:29.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v. Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre (Sup. Ct. App. S. Afr.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dire Tladi
Dire Tladi*
Affiliation:
International Law at the University of Pretoria and a member of the UN International Law Commission
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On November 27, 2013, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down a judgment on an appeal from the South African Police Service and Prosecution Authority in National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v. Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre (the Decision). The Court decided that the South African Police Service is empowered to initiate investigations into alleged crimes against humanity committed in the territory of another state, irrespective of whether the alleged perpetrators are present in South Africa, and ordered the authorities to initiate such investigations.

Type
International Legal Materials
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 152 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

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

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa website website (visited February 24, 2015), http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2013/sca2013-168.pdf.

1 National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v. Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre 2014 (2) SA 42 (SCA) (S. Afr.) [hereinafter the Decision].

2 South African Litigation Centre v. National Director of Public Prosecutions, (2012) (10) BCLR 109 (GNP), ¶ 33 (S. Afr.).

3 SS Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No 10. See also the Decision, supra note 1, ¶ 33.

4 The Decision, supra note 1, ¶ 37.

5 Id. ¶ 39.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id. ¶ 42.

10 Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (S. Afr.).

11 Id. § 4(3)(c). The other grounds are the traditional basis for jurisdiction, i.e., the offender is a South African (§ 4(3)(a)), the person is ordinarily resident in South Africa (§ 4(3)(b)), or the victims are South African or residents of South Africa (§ 4(3)(d)).

12 The Decision, supra note 1, ¶¶ 50–51.

13 Id. ¶¶ 55–56.

14 Id. ¶ 55.

15 Id. ¶ 56.

16 Id. ¶ 58.

17 Id. ¶¶ 59–65. The Court considers law from Canada (¶ 59), Denmark (¶ 60), France (¶ 61), Germany (¶ 62), the United Kingdom (¶ 63), and the African Union (¶ 64).

18 Id. ¶ 66.

19 Id. ¶ 67.

20 National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v. South African Human Rights Litigation Centre and Others, 2015 (1) SA 315 (CC) (S. Afr.).

21 Id. ¶ 64.

22 Id.

1 Section 7 of the Act enables the President by proclamation in the Government Gazette to establish one or more Investigating Directorates in the Office of the National Director, in respect of such offences or criminal or unlawful activities as set out in the proclamation. An investigation by such directorate is enabled in terms of s 28 of the NPA Act.

2 Section 13(1)(c) of the NPA Act reads as follows:

1 ‘(1) The President, after consultation with the Minster and the National Director –

. . .

c may appoint one or more Directors of Public Prosecutions (hereinafter referred to as Special Directors) to exercise certain powers, carry out certain duties and perform certain functions conferred or imposed on or assigned to him or her by the President by proclamation in the Gazette.’

3 Proclamation by the President of the Republic of South Africa of 24 March 2003, GN 46, GG 24876, 23 May 2003.

4 Crawford, J Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8 ed, 2012) at 447 Google Scholar. See Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI Article 2(1).

5 Dugard, J ‘Jurisdiction and international crimes’ in Dugard, J SC, Plessis, M du, SC, A Katz and Pronto, A International Law: a South African Perspective (4 ed, 2011) at 146 Google Scholar.

6 The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey) (1927) PCIJ Series A No. 10 at 18–19.

7 See O’Keefe, R ‘Universal jurisdiction: Clarifying the basic concept’ (2004) 2 Journal of International Criminal Justice 735 at 736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Dugard, J ‘Jurisdiction and international crimes’ in Dugard et al International Law: a South African Perspective (4 ed, 2011) at 148–154 Google Scholar.

9 The Case of the S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey) (1927) PCIJ Series A No. 10 at 19.

10 Chaskalson, A ‘How Far Are We from Achieving the Goals of the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights?’ (2009) 24 Maryland Journal of International Law 75 at 76 Google Scholar.

11 Crawford, J Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th ed, 2012) at 467 Google Scholar.

12 Dugard, J ‘Jurisdiction and international crimes’ in Dugard et al International Law: a South African Perspective (4 ed, 2011) at 157 Google Scholar.

13 Ibid at 157–158.

14 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (1998).

15 du Plessis, M ‘International criminal Courts, the International Criminal Court, and South Africa’s Implementation of the Rome Statute’ in Dugard et al International Law: a South African Perspective (4 ed, 2011) at 173 Google Scholar.

16 Rome Statute Article 1 read alongside Preamble para 4 and Articles 17 & 18.

17 Rome Statute Article 17(1).

18 Office of the Prosecutor, Informal Expert Paper: The principle of complementarity in practice (30 March 2009) ICC-01/04-01/07-1008-AnxA at 3.

19 Preamble to the Rome Statute read alongside Articles 1 and 5. These crimes are war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

20 Burger, AJ A Guide to Legislative Drafting in South Africa (2009) at 45 Google Scholar.

21 Burchell, J & Milton, J Principles of Criminal Law (3 ed, 2015) at 104 Google Scholar.

22 Of course this is also consistent with s 2 of the ICC Act which provides that conventional international law, customary international law and comparable foreign law may all be considered when interpreting and applying the Act’s provisions.

23 LaFontaine, F ‘The unbearable lightness of international obligations: When and how to exercise jurisdiction under Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act’ (2015) 23 Revue Quebecoise de Droit International 1 at 20-24 Google Scholar.

24 Public Prosecution Service of Canada, The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook at s. 16.3.

25 Penal Code (Straffeloven) 1930, section 8(5).

26 Human Rights Watch ‘Universal Jurisdiction in Europe: The State of the Art’ Volume 18, No. 5(D) (June 2006) at 46 Google Scholar.

27 Ibid at 56.

28 Germany, Code of Criminal Procedure, para 153f(2).

29 Act introducing the Code of Crimes against International Law (Gesetz zur Einfuhrung des Volkerstrafgesetzbuchs), BGBI,2002 I, P 2254 (Federal Law Gazette of the Federal Republic of Germany), June 26, 2002.

30 Human Rights Watch ‘Universal Jurisdiction in Europe: The State of the Art’ Volume 18, No. 5(D) (June 2006) at 29, 63–64 Google Scholar.

31 Ibid at 93–94.

32 African Union (Draft) Model National Law on Universal Jurisdiction over International Crimes, EXP/MIN/Legal/VI, November-December 2011.

33 ‘The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction’ published by the Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction (2001) at 44.