1 See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §§402 & cmts. c-g, 404 & cmts. a-b, 423 (1987)Google Scholar. Though torture is sometimes not included among the core international crimes, I include it in this category for convenience of use and because its prosecution based on universal jurisdiction presents similar issues to that of the other three crimes. For an examination of a broader list of crimes, see Report of the Secretary-General, The Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, UN Doc. A/65/181 (July 29, 2010)Google Scholar [hereinafter S-G Report].

2 See, e.g., Universal Jurisdiction: National Courts and the Prosecution of Serious Crimes Under International Law (Macedo, Stephen ed., 2003)Google Scholar [hereinafter Princeton Principles]; Amnesty International, Ending Impunity: Developing and Implementing a Global Action Plan Using Universal Jurisdiction, AI Index IOR 53/005/2009, Sept. 30, 2009 Google Scholar; Roth, Kenneth, The Case for Universal Jurisdiction, Foreign aff., Sept./Oct. 2001, at 150 Google Scholar.

3 See, e.g., Kontorovich, Eugene, The Inefficiency of Universal Jurisdiction, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 389 Google Scholar; Snyder, Jack & Vinjamuri, Leslie, Trial and Errors: Principles and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice, Int’l Security, Winter 2004, at 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldsmith, Jack & Krasner, Stephen D., The Limits of Idealism, Daedalus, Winter 2003, at 47 Google Scholar; Kissinger, Henry, The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial Tyranny, Foreign aff., July/Aug. 2001, at 86 Google Scholar.

4 The idea of universal jurisdiction is older than most core international crimes. For instance, while crimes against humanity, genocide, and torture were created as international crimes at or after the Nuremberg trials, states have claimed universal jurisdiction over the crime of piracy for more than two hundred years. The framework articulated in this article provides an explanation of why universal jurisdiction over piracy has been less controversial than its application to the core international crimes, since pirates are generally low-cost defendants. For three recent studies on piracy and universal jurisdiction, see Agora: Piracy Prosecutions, 104 AJIL 397 (2010)Google Scholar.

5 See, e.g., Report of the International Law Commission on Its Second Session 374–78, UN GAOR, 5th Sess., Supp. No. 12, UN Doc. A/1316 (1950).

6 See, e.g., Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] §6.1 (genocide) (1955) (Ger.); Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710–1950, SH No. 404 p. 140 (Isr.).

7 The Eichmann case was an exception. On this case, see, for example, Arendt, Hannah, Elchmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963)Google Scholar.

8 On the identification of Nazis in various states in the 1980s and the efforts to prosecute them, see, for example, Lippman, Matthew, The Pursuit of Nazi War Criminals in the United States and in Other Anglo-American Legal Systems, 29 CAL. W. Int’l L.J. 1, 13–20 (1998–99)Google Scholar.

9 For analyses of this broad trend, see, for example, Keck, Margaret E. & Slkkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (1998)Google Scholar; Simmons, Beth A., Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in domestic Politics (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 For a survey of the main universal jurisdiction cases until the early 2000s, see Reydams, Luc, Universal Jurisdiction: International and Municipal Legal Perspectives 86–219 (2003)Google Scholar.

11 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. NO. 100–20(1988), 1465 UNTS 85 [hereinafter Convention Against Torture]; Convention [No. 1] for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3114, 75 UNTS 31; Convention [No. 2] for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85; Convention [No. 3] Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135; Convention [No. 4] Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 [hereinafter Additional Protocol I]; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, S. Exec. Doc. N o . 91-B (1970), 78 UNTS 277; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 UNTS 3 [hereinafter ICC Statute].

12 See, e.g., M. Cherif, Bassiouni, The History of Universal Jurisdiction and Its Place in International Law, in Princeton Principles, supra note 2, at 39, 50, 55–56 Google Scholar.

13 See, e.g., 18U.S.C.§1091(e) (2006) (genocide); 18U.S.C.§2340A(b) (2006) (torture). See also decisions and statutes cited in the sections on Germany, England and Wales, France, Belgium, and Spain infra.

14 See, e.g., Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), 2002ICJ REP. 3 (Feb. 14) [hereinafter Arrest Warrant] (Higgins, Kooijmans, & Buergenthal, JJ., joint sep. op.).

15 See, e.g., Kaleck, Wolfgang, From Pinochet to Rumsfeld: Universal Jurisdiction in Europe 1998–2008, 30 Mich. Int’l L.J. 927, 930–31 (2009)Google Scholar.

16 For examples of analyses that have taken into account the role of political branches in universal jurisdiction prosecutions—though without articulating the theoretical framework, gathering the data, or exploring most of the issues that this article will present—see Falk, Richard A., Assessing the Pinochet Litigation: Whither Universal Jurisdiction? in Princeton Principles, supra note 2, at 97 Google Scholar; Ratner, Steven R., Belgium’s War Crimes Statute: A Postmortem, 97 AJIL 888 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Langland, Eric, Decade of Descent: The Ever-Shrinking Scope and Application of Universal Jurisdiction, Int’l L. News (ABA Section of Int’l L.), Summer 2010, at 4 Google Scholar.

17 See, e.g., Reydams, supra note 10; Cassese, Antonio, Is the Bell Tolling for Universality? A Plea for a Sensible Notion of Universal Jurisdiction, 1 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 589 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 See, e.g., Goldsmith & Krasner, supra note 3, at 51 (“Universal jurisdiction courts and prosecutors . . . are relatively unaccountable to their own government. . . .”); Kissinger, supra note 3, at 86 (“The danger lies in . . . substituting the tyranny of judges for that of governments . . . .”).

19 For instance, the police investigation and two trials against Afghan warlord Faryadi Sarwar Zardad reportedly cost £3 million. Laville, Sandra, UK Court Convicts Afghan Warlord: Zardad Found Guilty of Torture After Landmark Old Bailey Retrial, Guardian, July 19, 2005, at 2 Google Scholar. According to Belgium, its trials against Rwandan defendants were substantially cheaper and cost €233, 496.59 (the Butare Four in 2001); €308, 345.56 (Nzabonimana in 2005); and €219, 117.90 (Ntuyahagain 2007). International Court of Justice [ICJ], Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.), Application Instituting Proceedings, para. 6 (Feb. 19, 2009) [hereinafter Belg. v. Sen. ICJ Application].

20 The difficulties that Australian, British, and Canadian authorities have had in different prosecutions brought since the 1980s in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt against Nazis accused of committing international crimes are examples of this phenomenon. On these prosecutions, see, for example, Fraser, David, Law After Auschwitz (2005)Google Scholar.

21 For the purposes of this project, a criminal complaint was defined as a report by an individual or organization presented to state authorities against a physical person about the possible commission of a crime. The individual defendant was the unit of analysis. This means that if a complaint was presented or a trial was held against two defendants, two complaints or trials were coded—one per defendant. In the few cases where complaints were presented against unknown defendants, a single complaint was coded. Complaints (or cases considered by the authorities on their own motion) were coded that involved at least one of the core international crimes and were based fully or partially on universal jurisdiction. For coding purposes, a universal jurisdiction complaint or trial was defined as one in which the prosecuting state did not have any territorial, personal, or national-interest link to at least some of the core international crimes in question when the crimes were committed. The coding thus included cases of pure universal jurisdiction—in which there was no link between the prosecuting state and the crime or defendant even after the crime was committed; and subsidiary or custodial universal jurisdiction—in which there was a link between the prosecuting state and the crime or defendant after the crime was committed, such as presence of the defendant in that state’s territory. The sources checked for coding included judicial decisions of actual cases; LEXIS-NEXIS and Westlaw; specialized journals like the Journal of International Criminal Justice and the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law; key books on universal jurisdiction and international criminal law; the Web sites of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Justice and Accountability, the Hague Justice Portal, Human Rights Watch, the International Center for Transitional Justice, the International Federation of Human Rights and Trial Watch; reports on universal jurisdiction and international criminal law cases by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Redress; newspaper articles and other media documents; and the Google search engine. Every single case included in the database was documented. The coding was done between July 2009 and June 2010. Thus, for then-pending cases, the coding reflects the status of these cases during that time period. The same comment may apply to the case studies in part II as regards specific pending investigations, prosecutions, and trials, since most of the relevant research was carried out between June 2009 and February 2010.

22 Alleged perpetrators of international crimes committed during World War II in Germany and territories occupied by Germany have included people of several nationalities, including Belorussian, former Yugoslav, German, Hungarian, Latvian, Polish, and Ukrainian. Despite their different nationalities, they committed these crimes as Nazis or Nazi collaborators, which is why it makes sense to include them in this single category.

23 The percentage of universal jurisdiction complaints brought to trial is likely to be even lower than the 3% indicated by the trials:complaints 32:1051 ratio, because the survey probably underrepresents the total number of universal jurisdiction complaints (or cases considered by authorities on their own motion) for two different reasons. First, authorities and complainants may not publicly announce that such a complaint has been lodged. Second, given the worldwide scope of the survey, it is possible that not all publicly known universal jurisdiction complaints trials were lower than the indicated 3%, this fact would not challenge this article’s framework and hypotheses but would actually further confirm them.

24 See infra notes 213–16 and corresponding text.

25 The type of framework elaborated in this article can also help explain the low number of universal jurisdiction prosecutions for the crime of piracy. The costs of piracy tend to be lower than those for the core international crimes since most defendants are not protected by any state. The main cost of universal jurisdiction piracy prosecutions thus consists in the economic and logistical challenges of capturing and trying the defendants. But the incentives for political branches in this type of case are also low, in that piracy usually does not arouse as great a degree of concern in domestic constituencies as mass atrocities. For an analysis and findings consistent with these observations, see Kontorovich, Eugene & Art, Steven, An Empirical Examination of Universal Jurisdiction for Piracy, 104 AJIL 436 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 See, e.g., Council of the European Union, AU-EU Technical ad hoc Expert Group, Report on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, para. 25, Doc. 8672/1 /09 REV 1, annex at 26 (2009) [hereinafter AU-EU Expert Group].

27 See Kontotovich & Art, supra note 25, at 447 (analyzing this hypothesis to explain patterns of universal jurisdiction prosecutions regarding the crime of piracy).

28 See, e.g., id. at 449–50 (analyzing lack of apprehension as one of the hypotheses that would explain universal jurisdiction prosecution patterns in piracy cases).

29 The Ntuyahaga case in Belgium, the Eichmann and Demjanjuk cases in Israel, and the Scilingo case in Spain fall into this category.

30 This article does not argue that judges do not respond to incentives. But judges do not respond to the same incentives and disincentives as political branches in universal jurisdiction cases since judges in our five case studies are not popularly elected, may get individual reputational gains from going ahead with universal jurisdiction cases, may not be pressured directly by foreign governments, and do not have the main responsibility for international relations costs. The literature on judges’ incentives is extensive. A classic piece is Posner, Richard A., What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does), 3 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 1 (1993)Google Scholar.

31 StGB §§3, 9. English translations by the German Ministry of Justice of some of the laws cited in this section are available online at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/Teilliste_translations.html.

32 Id. §§7(2)(1), 5 (subsections 3a, 5a, 8, 9, 11a, 12, 14a, 15) (active personality); id. §§7(1), 5 (subsections 6, 6a, 7, 8, 14) (passive personality); id. §5 (subsections 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 14a) (protective principle); id. §§6, 7(2)(2) (representation principle); Völkerstrafgesetzbuch [VStGB] [Code of Crimes Against International Law], June 26, 2002, §1, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I at 2254 (universal jurisdiction).

33 Sections 6.1 and 220a (criminalizing genocide) of the German Penal Code entered into effect in 1955 after Germany acceded to the Genocide Convention in November 1954.

34 See infra note 53 on the Djajić and Sokolović cases.

35 See Kaleck, Wolfgang, German International Criminal Law in Practice: From Leipzig to Karlsruhe, in International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes 93, 102 (Kaleck, Wolfgang et al. eds., 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 See Gropengiesser, Helmut & Kreicker, Helmut, Deutschland 59–60, 444, 1 Nationale Strafverfolgung Völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen (Eser, Albin & Kreicker, Helmut eds., 2003 Google Scholar).

37 VStGB, §§1, 6, 7, 8–12.

38 Strafprozessordnung [StPO] [Code of Criminal Procedure] §152.

39 Id. §§153–54.

40 Id.§153c(1)(1).

41 Id. §153c(3).

42 Id.§153f(1)&(2)(3).

43 Id §153f(2)(4).

44 Id. §153c(4), f(3). The German legislature adopted section 153f(3) as a result of the concerns the federal prosecutor expressed about the principle of universal jurisdiction. Ambos, Kai, International Core Crimes, Universal Jurisdiction and § 153F of the German Criminal Procedure Code: A Commentary on the Decisions of the Federal Prosecutor General and the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in the Abu Ghraib/Rumsfeld Case, 18 Crim. L.F. 43, 55 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz [GVG] [Law on Constitution of the Courts] §§142a, 120(1)(8); StPO §153c(5).

46 GVG §147(1).

47 StPO §§403 (civil claim in the criminal process), 395 (private prosecutor regarding certain offenses).

48 Id. §172(2); Oberlandesgericht [OLG] Stuttgart [Higher Regional Court] Sept. 13, 2005, No. 5 Ws 109/05; OLG Stuttgart, Apr. 21, 2009, No. 5 Ws21/09. For the different views of German courts and commentators on this issue, see, for example, Ambos, Kai, Prosecuting Guantánamo in Europe: Can and Shall the Masterminds of the “Torture Memos” Be Held Criminally Responsible on the Basis of Universal Jurisdiction? 42 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 405, 430–32 (2009)Google Scholar.

49 See, e.g., Reydams, supra note 10, at 149–50.

50 Hannich, Rolf, Justice in the Name of All. Die praktische Anwendung des Völkerstrajgesetzbuchs aus der Sicht des Generalbundesanwalts beim Bundesgerichtshof, 13 Zeitschrift Fur Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 507, 510–11 (2007)Google Scholar. There have also been prosecutions against Argentine military for human rights violations in Argentina, but since they have mostly relied on the passive personality principle, they are beyond the scope of this article. The same applies to the case of John Demjanjuk who is being tried on the basis of passive personality and crimes committed while holding a German position (a sui generis type of active nationality) under the 1943 version of the German Penal Code.

51 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Indictment, No. IT-94–1 (Feb. 13, 1995).

52 Der Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof [Generalbundesanwalt], Straftaten nach dem Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (accessed on July 16, 2009, and on file with author).

53 Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht [BayObLG] [Bavarian Higher Regional Court] May 23, 1997, 1998 NeueJuristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 392 (Djajić); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice] Apr. 30, 1999, 1999 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht [NSTZ] 396, Int’l L. DomesticCts. [ILDC] 132 (Eng. trans.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] Dec. 12, 2000, 2001 Juristen-Zeitung [JZ] 975; Jorgić V. Germany, App. No. 74613/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R. July 12, 2007) (Jorgić); BGH, Revision Judgment, Feb. 21, 2001, NJW2728, ILDC 564 (Sokolović); BGH, Revision Judgment, Feb. 21, 2001, NJW2732 (Kušljić).

54 See, e.g., BGH Feb. 13, 1994, 1994 NSTZ 232 (Tadić); BGH Dec. 11, 1998, 1999 NSTZ 236 (Xv. SB & DB); BGH Apr. 30, 1999, supra note 53 (Jorgić). In Jorgić, the Constitutional Court left open the issue of whether a legitimizing link is actually required. See BVerfG Dec. 12, 2000, supra note 53. In Sokolović, the Federal Court of Justice said that it was inclined to abandon the legitimizing-link requirement, at least for cases prosecuted under section 6.9 of the Penal Code. See BGH, NJW 2728, supra note 53.

55 Amnesty International, Germany: End Impunity Through Universal Jurisdiction 60, 101–02, AI Index Eur 23/003/2008, 2008 Google Scholar (explaining that over sixty complaints have been presented).

56 Id. at 102.

57 See Knaup, Horand, Germany Arrests Rwandan War Crimes Suspects, Spiegel Online, Nov. 18, 2009, at http://www.spiegel.de/intemational/world/0,1518,druck-661965,00.html Google Scholar; BGH June 17, 2010, No. AK 3/10. This case has relied on the territorial and universal jurisdiction principles. I am grateful to Kai Ambos for discussing this point in detail with me.

58 Generalbundesanwalt, Anklage gegen einen ruandischen Staatsangehörigen wegen Völkermordes (Aug. 18, 2010), at http://www.generalbundesanwalt.de/de/showpress.php?themenid=T2&newsid=369.

59 Salvatore, Zappalà, The German Federal Prosecutor’s Decision Not to Prosecute a Former Uzbek Minister: Missed Opportunity or Prosecutorial Wisdom? 4J. Int’l Crim. Just. 602 (2006)Google Scholar; Amnesty International, supra note 55, at 101.

60 Amnesty International, supra note 55, at 60.

61 Hummel.Kaleck.Rechtsanwälte, Einstellung Strafverfahren gegen chinesische Regierung, at http://www.die firma.net/index.php?id=84,174,0,0,l,0.

62 Decision of the Federal Prosecutor, Oct. 2, 2005, JZ 311. An appeal was rejected by the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court, OLG Stuttgart Sept. 13, 2005, supra note 48. See also Jessberger, Florian, Universality, Complementarity, and the Duty to Prosecute Crimes Under International Law in Germany, in International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, supra note 35, at 213, 214 Google Scholar.

63 Center for Constitutional Rights, German War Crimes Complaint Against Donald Rumsfeld et al. (filed Nov. 14, 2006), at http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/german-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld-et-al.

64 Prosecutor General, Federal Supreme Court, Criminal Complaint Against Donald Rumsfeld et al., No. 3 ARP 156/06–2 (Apr. 5, 2007) (Eng. trans, of prosecutor’s decision), at http://ccrjustice.org/files/ProsecutorsDecision.pdf. An appeal was rejected by the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court, OLG Stuttgart Apr. 21, 2009, supra note 48.

65 11 (3) Halsbury’s Laws of England, para. 1054 (4th ed. 2006 reissue). The main exception to this general rule has been that a British subject who commits murder or manslaughter abroad can be prosecuted in Britain. Id., para. 1061 (citing Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, §9).

66 The Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act, 1995, c. 27, §1(2), added grave breaches to Additional Protocol I.

67 On the political context and debate that led to the implementation of the 1991 War Crimes Act, see FRASER, supra note 20, at 275 – 88.

68 Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, 5 & 6 Eliz. 2, c. 52, §1A(3); Criminal Justice Act, 1988, c. 33, §135; War Crimes Act, 1991, c. 13, §1(3); International Criminal Court Act, 2001, c. 17, §53(3).

69 The Crown Prosecution Service, Consents to Prosecute (July 21, 2010), at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/consent_to_prosecute/.

70 Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985, c. 23, §25(2)(a).

71 See id. §6(1).

72 For a summary of the trial, see R. v., Sawoniuk [2000] EWCA Crim 9 (Feb. 10, 2000)Google Scholar (denying Sawoniuk’s appeal).

73 See, e.g., Afghan Warlord Guilty of Torture, BBC News, July 18, 2005, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/uk/4693239.stm Google Scholar; Afghan Zardad Jailed for 20 Years, BBC News, July 19, 2005, at http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/uk_news/4695353.stm Google Scholar.

74 Afghan Warlord Guilty of Torture, supra note 73; Afghan Zardad Jailed for 20 Years, supra note 73.

75 See, e.g., Laville, supra note 19.

76 See, e.g., Afghan Warlord Guilty of Torture, supra note 73; Laville, supra note 19. Hostage taking is another crime over which UK courts have universal jurisdiction, but this study does not focus on it since it is not one of the four core international crimes.

77 Afghan Zardad Jailed for 20 Years, supra note 73.

78 Dodd, Vikram, Papers Reveal How Alleged War Criminal Escaped UK Arrest, Guardian, Feb. 20, 2008, at 8 Google Scholar.

79 Black, Ian & Cobain, Ian, British Court Issued Arrest Warrant for Former Israeli Minister over ‘War Crimes’ in Gaza, Guardian, Dec. 15, 2009, at 4 Google Scholar.

80 Gujarat Leader Calls off UK Visit, BBC NEWS, Mar. 25, 2005, at http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/south_asia/4381585.stm Google Scholar.

81 Re Mofaz (BowSt. Mag. Ct. Feb. 12, 2004), in Immunity and International Crimes in English Law (Warbricked, Colin.), 53 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 769, 771 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id. 3.X.11Q (reproducing the Mugabe judgment, Bow St. Mag. Ct. Jan. 14, 2004); Application for Arrest Warrant Against Bo Xilai (Bow St. Mag. Ct. Nov. 8, 2005) (per Workman, J.), cited in 18 Hum. Rts. Watch, No. 5(D), Universal Jurisdiction in Europe 94 n.431 (2006)Google Scholar, available at http://www.hrw.Org/en/node/l1297/section/15; e.g., Goldstone Defends UN Gaza Report, BBC News, Sept. 30, 2009, at http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/middle_east/8280181.stm Google Scholar (Barak).

82 For a description of the main cases against possible Nazi defendants, see Fraser, supra note 20, at 274, 290–92, 298–99.

83 Bindman, Geoffrey, UK Prosecutions for Crimes Under International Law, in Justice for Crimes Against Humanity 365, 370 (Lattimer, Mark & Sands, Philippe eds., 2003)Google Scholar.

84 Naomi, Roht-Arriaza, The Pinochet Effect 33 (2005)Google Scholar; Bindman, supra note 83, at 369-70. This case took place in Scotland and the decision on withdrawing the prosecution was made by the lord advocate.

85 See, e,g., Watch, Trial, Karuna Amman, at http://www.trial-ch.org/trialwatch/profil_print.php?ProfileID=733&Lang=en Google Scholar.

86 Universal Jurisdiction in Europe, supra note 81, at 94.

87 Bindman, supra note 83, at 366–67.

88 Id. at 366.

89 Sugarman, David, From Unimaginable to Possible: Spain, Pinochet and the Judicialization of Power, 3J. Spanish Cultural Stud. 107, 114 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 Dodd, Vikram, UK Considers Curbing Citizens’ Right to Arrest Alleged War Criminals, Guardian, Feb. 3, 2006, at 19 Google Scholar.

91 Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill 2010–11, H.C., pt. 4, §151; Hirsch, Afua, Hague Moves Quickly to Scrap International Crime Trials in UK, Guardian, May 31, 2010, at 12 Google Scholar; Brown, Gordon, Britain Must Protect Foreign Leaders from Private Arrest Warrants, Telegraph, Mar. 3, 2010, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/7361967/Bri tain-must-protect-foreign-leaders-from-arrest.html Google Scholar.

92 Code pénal Art. 113–2 (territorial jurisdiction); Art. 113–6 (active personality); Art. 113–7 (passive personality); Art. 113–10 (protective principles).

93 Loi 95–1 du 2 Janvier 1995 portant adaptation de la législation française aux dispositions de la résolution 827 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies instituant un tribunal international en vue de juger les personnes responsables de violations graves du droit international humanitaire commises sur le territoire de l’ex-Yougoslavie depuis 1991, J.O., Jan. 3, 1995, p. 71; Loi 96–432 du 22 mai 1996 portant adaptation de la législation française aux dispositions de la resolution 955 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies instituant un tribunal international en vue de juger les personnes présumées responsables d’actes de génocide ou d’autres violations graves du droit international humanitaire commis en 1994 sur le territoire de Rwanda et, s’agissant des citoyens rwandais, sur le territoire d’États voisins, J.O., May 23, 1996, p. 7695.

94 Code de Procédure pénale [C. pr. pén.] Art. 79.

95 Const. Art. 64; Code de l’organisation Judiciaire Art. L121–1.

96 C. pr. pén. Art. 40.

97 See, e.g., Beigbeder, Yves, Judging War Crimes and Torture: French Justice and International Criminal Tribunals and Commissions (1940–2005) at 12 (2006)Google Scholar.

98 C. pr. pén. Art. 30; Pradel, Jean, Manuel De Procedure Penale 131 (12th ed. 2004)Google Scholar.

99 C. pr. pén. Art. 1.

100 Id., Arts. 80, 86.

101 Id., Art. 186.

102 See id., Ans. 177–2, 177–3. The fine cannot currently exceed fifteen thousand euros. After receiving the complaint with the request to be admitted as a civil party, the investigating judge sets the amount that the civil party must deposit, based on the resources of the civil party, to ensure payment of the civil fine. Id., Arts. 88, 88–1.

103 Id, Art. 91.

104 Id, Arts. 91, 177–2.

105 Beigbeder, supra note 97, at 29–30, 301.

106 Some international criminal law cases have been based on the principles of active nationality, passive personality, and territoriality. They include cases on alleged crimes committed in Algeria (Aussaresses), Argentina (Astiz and others), Cambodia (Bilon Ung Boun Hor as complainant), Chile (Pinochet and others), Indochina (Boudarel), Nazis and Nazi collaborators (Barbie, Touvier, Papon), and Rwanda (against the French army and incumbent officials of the Rwandan government). But since they were not based on universal jurisdiction, they are beyond the scope of this article. For a recent review of some of these cases, see Leila Nadya, Sadat, The Nuremberg Paradox, 58 Am. J. Comp. L. 151 (2010)Google Scholar.

107 Cour d’assises [court of original jurisdiction] Montpellier, Ordonnance et mise en accusation et de non-lieu partiel et ordonnance de prise de corps, No. 99/14445 (May 25, 2001) [hereinafter Ould Dah Ordonnance], reprinted in Groupe d’action judiciaire de la FIDH, Mauritanie: Affaire ELYOULD DAH32 (June 2005), at http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Elyoulddahjuin2005_dpi200.pdf; Ould Dah v. France, App. No. 13112/03, Decision sur la Recevabilité 2, 12 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 17, 2009) [hereinafter Eur. Ct. Ould Dah Decision] (ruling Ould Dah’s application inadmissible); Group d’action judiciaire de la FIDH, Mauritanie: Affaire ELYOULD DAH: Ely Ould Dah condamné 8 (Nov. 2005) [hereinafter Ould Dah condamné], at http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/GAJ_Ely_Ould_Dah_nov2005_OK.pdf; Lecadre, Renaud, Un mauritanien juge en France pour tortures, LibÉration, June 30, 2005, at http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101534459-un-mauritanien-juge-en-france-pour-tortures Google Scholar.

108 Marie-Laure, Colson, Un officier mauritanien soupçonné de torture est arrêté en France, Libération, July 6, 1999, reprinted in Ould Dah condamné, supra note 107, at 14 Google Scholar; Marie-Laure, Colson, Représailles de la Mauritanie pour laver l’“affront” français, Libération, July 7, 1999, reprinted in id. at 12 Google Scholar.

109 Mise en liberté du capitaine mauritanien écroué en France pour “crimes de torture,“ Le Monde, Sept. 30, 1999 Google Scholar, reprinted in Ould Dah condamné, supra note 107, at 16.

110 Marie-Laure, Colson, Un présumé tortionnaire en liberié surveillée, Libération, Sept. 29, 1999 Google Scholar, reprinted in Ould Dah condamné, supra note 107, at 15; Ould Dah Ordonnance, supra note 107; Eur. Ct. Ould Dah Decision, supra note 107, at 2; Ould Dah condamné, supra note 107, at 8.

111 Chatain, Jean, Dix ans de prison pour un bourreau, L’Humanité, July 2005, reprinted in Ould Dah condamné, supra note 107, at 27 Google Scholar; Un militaire mauritanien mis en examen pour tortures a réussi à fuir la France, Le Monde, Apr. 9, 2000, reprinted in id. at 16 Google Scholar; Un tribunal français condamne un officier mauritanien à 10 ans de réclusion, Le Monde, July 2, 2005, reprinted in id. at 26 Google Scholar.

112 C. pr. pén. Art. 379–2 to 379–6; Eur. Ct. Ould Dah Decision, supra note 107, at 3; Cour d’assises Gard, Arrêt de Condamnation de Ely Ould Dah, No. 70/05 (July 1, 2005), reprinted in Ould Dah condamné, supra note 107, at 49.

113 See Cour d’assises Bas-Rhin, Ordonnance de mise en accusation de Khaled Ben Saïd, No. J.20009/01 (Feb. 16, 2007), reprinted in Groupe d’action judiciaire de la VIDH, L’affaire Khaled Ben Saïd: Le premier procès en France d’un fonctionnaire tunisien accusé de torture 47 (2009), available at http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ Bensaid512fr2008_FINAL.pdf [hereinafter L ‘affaire Ben Saïd].

114 L’affaire Ben Saïd, supra note 113, at 8.

115 Cour d’assises Bas-Rhin, Dec. 15, 2008, No. CA 08/36 (default judgment), reprinted in L’affaire Ben Saïd, supra note 113, at 63.

116 Ayad, Christophe, La France condamne un diplomate étranger, LibÉration, Dec. 17, 2008, reprinted in L’affaire Ben Saïd, supra note 113, at 24 Google Scholar.

117 S-G Report, supra note l.para. 100; FIDH, Condamnation en appeld’un diplomate tortionnaire tunisien (Sept. 25, 2010), at http://www.fidh.org/Condamnation-en-appel-d-un-diplomate-tortionnaire.

118 In addition to the cases against Rwandans mentioned in the text, as of December 13, 2010, complaints against fourteen additional Rwandans had been presented. On the status of each of these complaints, see Collectif des parties civiles pour le Rwanda, Affaires, at http://www.collectifpartiescivilesrwanda.fr/affairesjudiciaire.html. Furthermore, France handed over Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda and Francois-Xavier Nzuwonemeye to the ICTR.

119 See, e.g., Beigbeder, supra note 97, at 275–302.

120 See Mutimura c., France, App. No. 46621/99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 8, 2004)Google Scholar (in which Mrs. Mutimura, a civil party in the criminal case, claimed that France had violated her right to a fair and public hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time); Prosecutor v. Munyeshyaka, Prosecutor v. Bucyibaruta, Request for Referral to France, No. ICTR-05–87-I (Nov. 20, 2007).

121 See Collectif des parties civiles pour le Rwanda, Plainte avec constitution de partie civile (on file with author); Collectif des parties civiles pour le Rwanda, Affaires, supra note 118. In March 2010, Habyarimana was briefly arrested in France on the basis of an international arrest warrant issued by Rwanda—but not in the context of the French criminal proceedings based on universal jurisdiction just described. See, e.g., Rwanda: Agathe Habyarimana interpellée dans l’Essonne puis remise en liberté, Le Monde, Mar. 2, 2010, at http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2010/03/02/agathe-habyarimana-veuve-du-president-rwandais-assasine-en-avril-1994-interpellee-dans-lessonne_1313193_3212.html Google Scholar.

122 See FIDH, La répression des présumés génocidaires rwandais devant les jurisdictions françaises: État des lieux 4 (Apr. 6, 2004), at http://www.fidh.org/La-repression-des-presumes-genocidaires-rwandais Google Scholar; FIDH, 15 ans après le génocide, la justice française doit juger les présumés génocidaires présents sur le territoire français (Apr. 6, 2009), at http://www.fidh.org/15-ANS-APRES-LE-GENOCIDE-LA-JUSTICE-FRANCAISE Google Scholar. On current efforts to address this criticism, see Kouchner, Bernard & Michèle, Alliot-Marie, Pour la création d’un pôle “génocides et crimes contre l’humanité” au TGI de Paris, Le Monde, Jan. 6, 2010, available at http://www.cfcpi.fr/spip.phpParticle415 Google Scholar.

123 See Tribunal de grande instance [TGI] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris, Délivrance de mandats d’arrêt internationaux, Ordonnance de soit-communiqué 6, No. 97.295.2303/0 (Nov. 17, 2006).

124 See Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] crim., No. 04–87.245, Public hearing (Jan. 10, 2007); Cass, crim., No. 07–86.412, Public hearing (Apr. 9, 2008).

125 Cass. crim. (Jan. 10, 2007), supra note 124; Cass. crim. (Apr. 9, 2008), supra note 124.

126 ICJ, Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Congo v. Fr.), Application Instituting Proceedings 3 (Dec. 9, 2002).

127 On the French proceedings, see, for example, Arrêt de la Chambre de l’Instruction de la Cour d’appel de Versailles du 20 juin 2007, extracted in FIDH, Affaire des “disparus du Beach”: Récapitulatif des procédures 24 (Nov. 9, 2007), at http://www.fidh.org/Affaire-des-disparus-du-Beach-Recapitulatif-des,4872; Cass. crim. No. 07–86412, Public hearing (Apr. 9, 2008). On the discontinuance of the ICJ case, see Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Congo v. Fr.) (Int’1 Ct. Justice Nov. 16, 2010); Akande, Dapo, More on Congo v. France Discontinued, EJIL: Talk! (Nov. 19, 2010), at http://www.ejiltalk.org/ Google Scholar (giving possible reasons for Congo’s request).

128 FIDH, Deux tortionnaires algériens mis en examen en France (Mar. 31, 2004), at http://www.fidh.org/DEUXTORTIONNAIRES- ALGERIENS-MIS-EN-EXAMEN-EN#outil_sommaire_1 Google Scholar; L’affaire Ben Saïd supra note 113, at 42.

129 Cass. crim. No. 95–81527, Public hearing (Mar. 26, 1996).

130 Ould Dah condamné, supra note 107, at 30.

131 Id. at 31.

132 Mugabe Trial Bid Launched in Paris, BBC NEWS, Feb. 19, 2003, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2779313.stm Google Scholar; Tatchell, Peter, Mugabe Escapes Arrest in Paris , at http://www.petertatchell.net/international/mu gabefrance.htm Google Scholar.

133 Complaint Filed Against Former Defense Secretary for Torture, Abuse at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib Before the TGI, Paris, at 19–25 (Oct. 25, 2007), at http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/plainteFINALE25oct07.pdf.

134 Letter from Jean-Claude Marin, prosecutor of the TGI, Paris, to Patrick Baudouin, FIDH attorney (Nov. 16, 2007) (on file with author).

135 See, e.g., Sulzer, Jeanne, Implementing the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in France , in International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, supra note 35, at 125, 136–37 Google Scholar.

136 Loi 2010–930 du 9 août 2010 portant adaptation du droit pénal à l’institution de la Cour pénale internationale, Art. 8, J.O., Aug. 10, 2010, p. 14678.

137 Code PÉnal Arts. 3, 4. The Belgian codes cited in this article can be found online at http://www.droit belge.be/codes.asp.

138 Code Destruction Criminelle [C.I.Cr.] [Code of Criminal Procedure] Arts. 6, 7 (active personality, which includes not only Belgian nationals, but also other persons whose main residence is in Belgium); Art. 10, §§4, 5 (passive personality); Art. 10, §§1, 2, & 3 (protective principles).

139 Walleyn, Luc, Universal Jurisdiction: Lessons from the Belgian Experience, 5 Y.B. Int’l Humanitarian L. 394 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

140 Loi relative à la répression des infractions graves aux Conventions internationales de Genéve du 12 août 1949 et aux Protocoles I et II du 8 juin 1977, additionnels à ces conventions of June 16, 1993, Moniteur Belge [M.B.], Aug. 5, 1993. Most of the laws and cases of higher Belgian courts cited in this article can be found online at http://www.belgiumlex.be/.

141 Walleyn, supra note 139, at 396.

142 See Kerstens, Paul, “Deliver Us from Original Sin “: Belgian Apologies to Rwanda and the Congo, in The Age of Apology: Facing up to the Past 187, 193 (Gibney, Mark et al. eds., 2009)Google Scholar; Walleyn, supra note 139, at 396.

143 Loi relative à la répression des violations graves de droit international humanitaire of Feb. 10, 1999, Art. 2, M.B., Mar. 23, 1999, 9267.

144 Id., Art. 5.

145 Belgium Senate, Rapport de la Commission de la Justice, No. 1–749/3 (Dec. 1, 1998), quoted in Reydams, Luc, Universal Criminal Jurisdiction: The Belgian State of Affairs, 11 Crim. L.F. 183, 193 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vandermeersch, Damien, Prosecuting International Crimes in Belgium, 3 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 400, 402 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

146 See, e.g., Kerstens, supra note 142.

147 Loi portant modification de l’article 12bis de la loi du 17 avril 1878 contenant le titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale, M.B., Sept. 1, 2001, 9673.

148 Convention Against Torture, supra note 11. For Belgium’s ratification, see http://treaties.un.org/.

149 C.I.Cr. Art. 55.

150 Const. Art. 151.

151 C.I.Cr. Arts. 56, §1, 61.

152 Id., Art. 61.

153 Id., Arts. 28quater, 28ter.

154 Const. Arts. 151 (as amended on Nov. 20, 1998), 151, §1, & 153; Code Judiciaire [C.Jud.] [Judicial Code] Arts. 138, 143, 143bis, 143ter, 143quater.

155 C.I.Cr. Art. 63; Christine van den, Wyngaert, Belgium , in Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community 1, 17-18 (Christine van den, Wyngaert ed., 1993)Google Scholar. Article 9, §3 of the universal jurisdiction statute of June 1993 affirmed that private actors could get direct access to the courts, even when military courts had jurisdiction over the case.

156 C.I.Cr. Art. 127.

157 Id., Art. 128; C.Jud. Art. 1022.

158 See supra notes 102–04 and corresponding text.

159 Reydams, supra note 145, at 202.

160 Cour d’assises, Bruxelles, Lecture de l’acte d’accusation par l’avocat général 6 [hereinafter Lecture], in Compte rendu intégral du procès (Apr. 17—June 8, 2001) [hereinafter Butare Four Record], at http://www.assises rwanda2001.be/040000.html; Reydams, supra note 145, at 203; Vandermeersch, supra note 145, at 404.

161 Reydams, Luc, Belgium’s First Application of Universal Jurisdiction: The Butare Four Case, 1 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 428, 430 & n. 13 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Belgium deferred to the ICTR in its proceedings against, among others, Ferdinand Nahimana, Georges Ruggiu, Théoneste Bagosora, Bernard Ntuyahaga, Elie Ndayambaje, and Joseph Kanyabashi. Only the last two had been present in Belgium.

162 Id., at 430.

163 Lecture, supra note 160, at 1, 24–27.

164 Cour d’assises, Bruxelles, Verdict, in Butare Four Record, supra note 160, at http://www.assisesrwanda2001.be/110500.html.

165 Arrest Warrant, supra note 14, at 9–10, para. 15; Vandermeersch, supra note 145, at 406–07.

166 Arrest Warrant, supra note 14, at 6, 9–10, paras. 1, 13, 15.

167 Id. at 10, para. 17.

168 Id. at 33, para. 78(2), (3).

169 Plainte avec constitution de partie civile contre Ariel Sharon (June 18, 2001), at http://www.voltairenet.org/article9775.html.

170 La chambre des mises en accusation, Bruxelles, arrêt de la cour d’appel June 26, 2002, Sharon & Yaron, at http://www.law.kuleuven.be/jura/art/40n1/genocidewet_rechtspraak.html#26062002.

171 Cass., Feb. 11, 2003, No. P.02.1139.F, reprinted in 42 ILM 596 (2003) (Eng. trans.).

172 Walleyn, supra note 139, at 402.

173 See Le procureur général près la Cour de cassation, en cause Bush et consorts, Note, attached to Cass., Sept. 23, 2003, No. P.03.1216.F; Jean-Pierre, Borloo & Vassart, Pierre, Compétence universelle: plainte contre Bush père, Le Soir (Bruxelles), Mar. 19, 2003 Google Scholar.

174 Borloo & Vassart, supra note 173.

175 See Bernstein, Richard, Belgium Rethinks Its Prosecutorial Zeal, N.Y. Times, Apr. 1, 2003, at A8 Google Scholar. For the outcome of the Sharon and Bush cases, see text at note 192 infra.

176 Juge d’instruction à Bruxelles, 6 novembre 1998, in 1999 Revue de Droit PÉnal et de Criminologie (Belg.) 278 Google Scholar; Reydams, supra note 145, at 206, 213; Vandermeersch, supra note 145, at 406, 408; Wouters, Jan, The Judgement of the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant Case: Some Critical Remarks, 16 Leiden J. Int’l L. 253, 266 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some of the governments concerned reacted strongly to these investigations. For instance, the Iranian Parliament demanded financial compensation for the “pain inflicted upon the Iranian people” as a consequence of the complaint against former president Rafsanjani. See Winants, Alain, The Yetodia Ruling of the International Court of Justice and the 199311999 Belgian Law on Universal Jurisdiction, 16 Leiden J. Int’l L. 491, 503 n.65 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

177 Ratner, supra note 16, at 890; Verhaeghe, Michael, The Political Funeral Procession for the Belgian UJ Statute , in International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes, supra note 35, at 139, 142 Google Scholar.

178 Loi modifiant la loi du 16 juin 1993 relative à la répression des violations graves du droit international humanitaire et l’article l44ter du Code judiciaire of Apr. 23, 2003, Arts. 4, 5, M.B., May 7, 2003, 9412 [hereinafter April 2003 law] (replacing Art. 5, §3 and Art. 7 of the 1993/1999 law); Universal Jurisdiction Rejection Act of 2003, H.R. 2050, 108th Cong. §2(10) (2003) (describing passage of 2003 Belgian law and vote in the Chamber of Representatives).

179 April 2003 law, supra note 178, Art. 5 (replacing Art. 7 of the 1993/1999 law).

180 Verhaeghe, supra note 177, at 142.

181 Walleyn, supra note 139, at 402–03.

182 Ratner, supra note 16, at 891.

183 See Centre de droit international, Université libre de Bruxelles, Développements judiciaires, Affaire Franks: Plainte, at http://www.ulb.ac.be/droit/cdi/Site/Developpements_judiciaires.html; KLACHT TEGEN TOMMY FRANKS (15 MEI 2003) & KI 24 SEPTEMBER 2003 (FRANKS EN MCCOY), at http://www.law.kuleuven.be/jura/art/40n1/genocidewet_rechtspraak.html#09092003 [hereinafter Chambre des mises en accusation, Franks & McCoy].

184 Chambre des mises en accusation, Franks & McCoy, supra note 183.

185 Arrêt de la Chambre de mises en accusation (Corpus de la décision), June 10, 2003, at http://www.law.kuleuven.be/jura/art/40n1/genocidewet_rechtspraak.html (then Find “Corpus de la decision”).

186 Ratner, supra note 16, at 891 (quoting News Transcript: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld at NATO Headquarters (June 12, 2003), at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2742)Google Scholar; see also Walleyn, supra note 139, at 403.

187 Ratner, supra note 16, at 891 (quoting Projet de loi relative aux violations graves du droit humanitaire, July 23, 2003, Belg. Parl. DOC. 51 0103/001).

188 Loi relative aux violations graves du droit international humanitaire of Aug. 5, 2003, Art. 27, M.B., Aug. 7, 2003, 21, 182 [hereinafter August 2003 law].

189 C.I.Cr. Art. 6.1 bis, as amended by August 2003 law, supra note 188, Art. 14; Reydams, Luc, Belgium Reneges on Universality: The 5 August 2003 Act on Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1 J. Int’l Crim. Just. 679, 683 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (citing BELG. PARL. DOC. 51 0103/001, supra note 187, at 5–6).

190 C.I.Cr. Art. 12bis. The Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of most of these provisions. Cour d’arbitrage, Mar. 23, 2005, No. 62/2005.

191 August 2003 law, supra note 188, Art. 29.

192 Cass., Sept. 9, 2003, No. P.03.1217.F (Sharon); Cass., No. P.03.1216.F, supra note 173 (Bush); David, Eric, Belgium, in 8 Y.B. Int’l Humanitarian L. 396, 400–02 (2005)Google Scholar (describing the role of the Court of Cassation and the Cour d’arbitrage in the dismissal of the Kagamé case and the TotalFinaElf case); Vandermeersch, supra note 145, at 408 (Sharon, Bush, Castro).

193 Chambre des mises en accusation, Franks & McCoy, supra note 183.

194 Belgium also proceeded with an investigation of former Chad president Hisséne Habré. On February 16, 2009, Belgium instituted ICJ proceedings against Senegal—the country where Habré had been in exile since his 1990 ouster—demanding that Senegal prosecute Habré on the basis of universal jurisdiction or extradite him to Belgium to be tried for crimes against humanity and torture. However, Belgium has taken the position that its jurisdiction over this case is based not on universal jurisdiction but on the passive personality principle. See Belg. v. Sen. ICJ Application, supra note 19.

195 See Centre de droit international, supra note 183, Cour d’assises, Bruxelles, [judgment of] June 29, 2005.

196 See Hague Justice Portal, Etienne Nzabonimana and Samuel Ndashyikirwa, at http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/ll/883.TDlGUg.html.

197 Centre de droit international, supra note 183, Cour d’assises, Bruxelles, [judgment of] July 5, 2007.

198 Muramira, Gashegu, Rwanda: Belgian Court to Decide Nkezabera’s Fate, New Times (Kigali), Jan. 14, 2010, at http://allafrica.com/stories/201001140053.html Google Scholar. Since he could not attend his trial as he was suffering from cancer, in March 2010 the Cour d’assises of Brussels agreed to a new trial for him. But Nkezabera passed away shortly afterward, which put an end to the legal proceedings against him.

199 Ley Organica del Poder Judicial [L.O.P.J.] [Law on the Judiciary] Art. 65(i)(e).

200 See, e.g., S.T.S. [Tribunal Supremo], No. 1240/2006, Dec. 11, 2006 (on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I).

201 ConstituciÓn EspaÑola [C.E.] Art. 117.

202 Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal [L.E. Crim.] [Code of Criminal Procedure] Arts. 105, 271, 306, 319.

203 The head of the Office of the Prosecutor is appointed by the king by proposal of the government after the Judicial Council has been heard.

204 Teresa Armenta, Deu, Lecciones de Derecho Procesal Penal 82–83 (3d ed. 2007)Google Scholar.

205 L.E. Crim. Arts. 303, 308.

206 C.E. Art. 125; L.E. Crim. Arts. 101, 270; Armenta Deu, supra note 204, at 86.

207 C.E. Art. 24; L.E. Crim. Arts. 270(1), (II), 280–81; Armenta Deu, supra note 204, at 85.

208 L.E. Crim. Art. 313; Armenta Deu, supra note 204, at 31–32.

209 L.E. Crim. Art. 280. Article 281 of the code establishes a number of exceptions to this rule.

210 L.O.P.J. Art. 20(3).

211 Tribunal Constitucional [S.T.C.] No. 62/1983, July 11, 1983; No. 113/1984; No. 1471/1989; No. 326/1994, Dec. 12, 1994, cited by Armenta Deu, supra note 204, at 87.

212 L.E. Crim. Art. 637; Código Penal [Criminal Code] An. 205.

213 Horacio Verbitsky, El Vuelo (1995).

214 Roht-Arriaza, supra note 84, at 24.

215 See, e.g., Juzgado Central de Instrucción [J.C.I.] [central investigating court] No. 5, Audiencia Nacional [A.N.] Madrid, Auto [interlocutory decision], May 8, 2000, at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/arg/espana/reitero.html; España: comenzó el proceso de extraditión del represor Cavallo, CLARIN, Mar. 30, 2008, at http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2008/03/30/um/m-01639928.htm Google Scholar.

216 See Texto del apartado número 8 de lanota del Ministerio de relaciones exteriores argentino (Jan. 15, 1997), at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/arg/espana/coop.html; Decree No. 111/98, Jan. 26, 1998, Boletin Oficial, Feb. 9, 1998 (Arg.).

217 See Auto de la Sala de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional, A.N. Madrid, No. 84/98, Nov. 4, 1998, at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/arg/espana/audi.html [hereinafter Auto No. 84/98].

218 See Amnistía internacional, La Audiencia Nacional condena a el (sic) ex militar argentino Adolfo Scilingo por crímenes de lesa humanidad (Apr. 19, 2005), at http://ania.urcm.net/spip.phpJarticlel3324 Google Scholar

219 See A.N. Madrid, Sala de lo Penal, No. 16/2005, Apr. 19, 2005, at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/juicioral/#casa.

220 See S.T.S. No. 798/2007, Oct. 1, 2007, at http://www.derechos.Org/nizkor/espana/juicioral/#casa.

221 See, e.g., Roht-Arriaza, supra note 84; Bradley, Curtis A. & Goldsmith, Jack L., Pinochet and International Human Rights Litigation, 97 Mich. L. Rev. 2129 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

222 J.C.I. No. 5, A.N. Madrid, Auto, Sumario [case] 19/97, Oct. 16, 1998; Roht-Arriaza, supra note 84, at 1, 34–35; Sugarman, supra note 89, at 114.

223 Roht-Arriaza, supra note 84, at 36–37; Sugarman, supra note 89, at 112–14.

224 See, e.g., Reasons for Authority to Proceed by Secretary of State Jack Straw, 9 December 1998 , in The Pinochet Papers 183, 184 (Brody, Reed & Ratner, Michael eds., 2000)Google Scholar.

225 A.N. Madrid, Sala de lo Penal, Rollode Apelación [Appeal No.] 173/98, Auto, Sumario 1/98, Nov. 5, 1998; Auto No. 84/98, supra note 217.

226 R. v. Barde & Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet, [1999] UKHL 17, [2000] 1 A.C. 147 (H.L.).

227 See Second Authority to Proceed by Secretary of State Jack Straw , 15 April 1999, in The Pinochet Papers, supra note 224, at 373 Google Scholar; Reasons for Second Authority to Proceed by Secretary of State Jack Straw , 5 April 1998, in id. at 375 Google Scholar.

228 Roht-Arriaza, supra note 84, at 59–60; Sugarman, supra note 89, at 114–15.

229 Urbano, Pilar, Garzón: El Hombre que veía amanecer 535 (2000)Google Scholar.

230 Roht-Arriaza, supra note 84, at 64.

231 Id.

232 See British Medical Report on Augusto Pinochet , in The Pinochet Papers, supra note 224, at 447 Google Scholar.

233 See Letters from the Home Office to the Spanish, Belgian, Swiss and French Ambassadors Announcing the Termination of Extradition Proceedings , 2 March 2000, in The Pinochet Papers, supra note 224, at 465 Google Scholar; Statement of Secretary of State Jack Straw in the House of Commons , 2 March 2000 Google Scholar [excerpts], in id. at 481.

234 J.C.I. No. 1, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas [preliminary proceedings] 331/99, Auto, Mar. 27, 2000.

235 S.T.S. No. 327/2003, Feb. 25, 2003.

236 See Cándido, Conde-Pumpido, La justicia universal en la jurisdicción española, 51 Persona y Derecho 49 (2004)Google Scholar.

237 S.T.C. No. 237/2005, Sept. 26, 2005.

238 See J.C.I. No. 4, A.N. Madrid, Auto, Sumario 3/2008, Feb. 6, 2008 (Rwanda); J.C.I. No. 5, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 362/2007, Auto, Oct. 29, 2007 (Morocco).

239 See, e.g., J.C.I. No. 6, A.N. Madrid, Diligenciasprevias391/08, Auto, Apr. 10, 2009 (El Salvador); J.C.I. No. 2, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 211/2008, Auto, Sumario 56/2009, Sept. 17, 2009 (Nazis). Other complaints presented by private or people’s prosecutors were dismissed on the basis of transnational complementarity or the immunity doctrine. See, e.g., Amnistía internacional, Otros Casos Abiertos en España , at http://www.es.amnesty.org/temas/justicia-internacional/otros-casos-abiertos-en-espana/ Google Scholar; Justicia española rechaza querella contra Hugo Chávez y la envía a la CPI, La Crónica de Hoy, Mar. 25, 2003, at http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=56033 Google Scholar (on the complaint against Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez).

240 S.T.C. No. 227/2007, Oct. 22, 2007.

241 A.N., Madrid, Sala de lo Penal, Rollo de Apelación 196/05, Diligencias previas 237/05, Auto, Jan. 10, 2006 Google Scholar.

242 Christine A. E., Bakker, Universal Jurisdiction of Spanish Courts over Genocide in Tibet: Canlt Work? 4J. Int’l Crim. Just. 595, 599 (2006)Google Scholar.

243 See Altozano, Manuel, Pedrazpide a China que lepermita interrogar a tres ministros por la represión en Tíbet, El País (Madrid), May 5, 2009, at http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Pedraz/pide/China/le/permita/interrogar/ministros/represion/Tibet/elpepuesp/20090505elpepunac_8/Tes Google Scholar.

244 See J.C.I. No. 1, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 242/2008–10, Auto, Aug. 5, 2008; Altozano, supra note 243.

245 Altozano, supra note 243.

246 China pide “medidas efectivas” para que la Audiencia abandone el caso sobre el Tíbet, El País, May 7, 2009, at http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/China/pide/medidas/efectivas/Audiencia/abandone/caso/Tibet/elpepuesp/20090507elpepunac_ll/Tes.

247 Javier Fernández Estrada, Querella contra los responsables de crímenes de guerra cometidos... en Gaza (June 24, 2008), at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/gaza.html.

248 J.C.I. No. 4, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 157/2008, Auto, Jan. 29, 2009.

249 See La Audiencia Nacional provoca una tormenta political en Israel contra España, El Confidencial (Madrid), Jan. 30, 2009, at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/gaza3.html Google Scholar.

250 Justicia estudia prohibir a la Audiencia Nacional juzgar asuntos que no tengan “nexo de conexión “ con España, Cadena Ser (Madrid), Jan. 31, 2009, at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/gaza4.html Google Scholar.

251 See Pedro Martinez, Torrijos, A1 Juzgado, May 6, 2009, at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/gaza7.html Google Scholar.

252 See A.N., Madrid, Sala de lo Penal, Apelación 31/2009, Auto, No. 1/09, July 9, 2009 Google Scholar.

253 The Couso case—in which a Spanish investigating judge opened formal proceedings and issued international arrest warrants against three American military officers for war crimes in relation to the killing of a Spanish and a Ukrainian journalist in the “Hotel Palestine” in Iraq—initially relied at least partially on universal jurisdiction given that one of the victims was not Spanish and that Spain did not establish jurisdiction for its courts over these crimes based on the passive personality principle. But the case seems to have become an exclusively passive personality case after the passage of the November 2009 amendment to Article 23(4) of the Spanish Judiciary Act, discussed below, and the narrowing down of the investigation only to the killing of the Spanish journalist as an attack against a civilian population and as an act of violence in order to terrorize the civilian population or journalists. See, e.g., J.C.I. No. 1, A.N. Madrid, Auto, Sumario 27/2007, July 29, 2010. For this reason, this case is not analyzed in this article.s

254 Javier Fernández, Estrada, Decanato de los Juzgados Centrales de Instructión de la Audiencia Nacional para el Juzgado Central de Instrucción que por Turno Corresponda, Mar. 17, 2009, at http://www.nodo50.org/csca/agenda09/palestina/pdf/QUERELLAVERSIONFINAL.pdf Google Scholar (complaint).

255 See J., Yoldi, El fiscal rechaza investigar Guantánamo tras hablar con la EE UU, El País, Apr. 18, 2009, at http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/fiscal/rechaza/investigar/Guantanamo/hablar/EE/UU/elpepiesp/20090418elpepinac_4/Tes Google Scholar.

256 Id.

257 See J.C.I. No. 6, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 134/2009, Auto, May 4, 2009.

258 Id.

259 See J.C.I. No. 5, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 150/09, Auto, Apr. 27, 2009.

260 See J.C.I. No. 5, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 150/09, Auto, Jan. 27, 2010.

261 See, e.g., F., Garea & A., Díez, PP y PSOE se alían para recortar la aplicación de la justicia universal, El País, May 19, 2009 Google Scholar; El Congreso insta al Gobierno a que limite la jurisdicción universal en España, Diario ABC, May 19, 2009, at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/jun2.html Google Scholar.

262 See El Congreso restringe la aplicación de la justicia universal a casos vinculados con España, El Confidencial, June 25, 2009, at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/junl8.html Google Scholar.

263 Ley Orgánica 1 /2009, de 3 de noviembre, complementaria de la Ley de reforma de la legislación procesal para la implantatión de la nueva Oficina judicial, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial [Organic Law Modifying Judiciary Act of July 1, 1985] (Boletín Oficial del Estado 2009, 1).

264 Article 23(4) now also establishes that Spanish courts can exercise jurisdiction if the victims are Spanish.

265 J.C.I. No. 4, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 211/2009, Auto, Nov. 26, 2009.

266 Id. For Geneva Convention No. 4, see supra note 11.

267 Auto, Jan. 27, 2010, supra note 260.

268 See J.C.I. No. 1, A.N. Madrid, Diligencias previas 242/2008, Auto, Feb. 27, 2010.

269 The territorial, active personality, and passive personality principles would normally provide a jurisdictional basis for trials to harass internal enemies and opponents, making unnecessary the invocation of universal jurisdiction. On the use of trials for political purposes, see, for example, Klrchheimer, Otto, Political Justice: The Use of Legal Procedure for Political Ends (1961)Google Scholar; Minear, Richard H., Victors’ Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (1971)Google Scholar.

270 On the distinction between political and legal or adjudicatory trials, see, for example, Posner, Eric A., Political Trials in Domestic and International Law, 55 Duke L.J. 75 (2005)Google Scholar; Jenia Iontcheva, Turner, Defense Perspectives on Law and Politics in International Criminal Trials, 48 VA. J. Int’l L. 529 (2008)Google Scholar.

271 Another due process criticism that this article will not analyze is that universal jurisdiction trials may be unfair owing to the defendant’s lack of familiarity with the prosecuting state’s legal system or language, or the prosecuting state’s judges’ lack of understanding of the society in which the international crimes took place. Analyzing this criticism is beyond the scope of this article because it refers to issues that originate in the cultural or linguistic gap between defendants and judges, rather than in the interaction between law and politics.

272 This distinction applies even to the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal trial, which is often mentioned as an example of universal jurisdiction. Since the Allies had defeated Germany and become the occupying government in Germany, they could claim jurisdiction over these cases based on territoriality and active personality. In addition, many of the crimes took place in the territory of European Allies or against Allied nationals. For an argument that the four Allies exercised jurisdiction in Nuremberg as occupying powers, see Woetzel, Robert K., The Nuremberg Trials in International Law 77–79, 88–89 (1960)Google Scholar.

273 The Eichmann case is excluded from this total number because it took place in the 1960s.

274 On this criticism, see Goldsmith & Krasner, supra note 3.

275 On this criticism, see works cited supra note 3. In addition, it is worth noting that if a group of states undertakes to prosecute certain defendants and thus interferes with beneficial political solutions, the problem lies in the group of states itself, not in the international criminal law regime invoked to enforce its decision.

276 See Reydams, supra note 10; Cassese, supra note 17. On some of the risks of legalistic approaches to international issues more generally, see, for example, Pildes, Richard H., Conflicts Between American and European Views of Law: The Dark Side of Legalism, 44 VA. J. Int’l L. 145 (2003)Google Scholar.

277 For the characterization of universal jurisdiction as a tool to harass democratic world leaders, see Bolton, John, Democracy Under Arrest, Wall ST. J., Dec. 16, 2009, at A27 Google Scholar.

278 See Minow, Martha, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence 31, 40-46 (1999)Google Scholar.

279 See, e.g., AU-EU Expert Group, supra note 26, para. 34; Legal Committee Delegates See Principle of Universal Law as Safeguard Against Impunity for Major Crimes; Some Caution on Risk of Abuse, UN Doc. GA/L/3371 (Oct. 20, 2009).

280 For a cosmopolitan defense of universal jurisdiction that relies on this idea, see Feldman, Noah, Cosmopolitan Law? 116 Yale L.J. 1022, 1061–65 (2007)Google Scholar (book review).

281 For an argument on why pure universal jurisdiction over the core international crimes is not legal under customary international law, see, for example, Arrest Warrant, supra note 14, at 40—42, paras. 10—12 (Guillaume, J., sep. op.). The treaty basis for universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and genocide is weak because there is no special international convention on crimes against humanity, the Genocide Convention does not establish universal jurisdiction, and the ICC Statute does not clearly require or authorize state parties to establish universal jurisdiction over the crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court. As for war crimes, scholars tend to agree that the grave breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions establish universal jurisdiction, at least when the defendant is present in the prosecuting state’s territory. But the Conventions are not explicit about it and by the end of the 1990s, only one of every six states that had ratified the Conventions had established universal jurisdiction over grave breaches. See Richard van, Elst, Implementing Universal Jurisdiction over Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions, 13 Leiden J. Int’l L. 815 (2000)Google Scholar. There is broader consensus that the Convention Against Torture establishes universal jurisdiction when the defendant is present in the prosecuting state’s territory. But even in this case, the Convention is not explicit about it—it only establishes the aut dedere aut prosequi principle. See Bassiouni, supra note 12, at 55–56.

282 The lack of protest by the defendant’s state of nationality deals with one of the main legal objections against universal jurisdiction—that it violates the principle of state sovereignty.

283 See, e.g., Additional Protocol I, supra note 11, Art. 85(3)(b); ICC Statute, supra note 11, Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) (where the loss has to be “clearly excessive”).

284 See Roht-Arriaza, supra note 84, at 3 7 – 4 0.