Les limites de la « dissuasion » en droit pénal national et international

Payam Akhavan, dans son article « Beyond Impunity: Can International Justice Prevent Future Atrocities »[1], s’interroge sur la façon dont la justice pénale peut prévenir la perpétration de crimes de guerre et de crimes contre l’humanité ou empêcher leur répétition[2]. Il estime entre autres que la crainte de représailles – qu’il s’agisse de mesures judiciaires ou de sanctions politiques – peut finir par dissuader certains acteurs de commettre des atrocités.

Il va sans dire que cet argument s’applique aux hommes d’État et leaders politiques. D’une part, la création de tribunaux spéciaux en ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY) et au Rwanda (TPIR) et les emprisonnements qui ont suivi ont contribué à miner la culture d’impunité qui régnait jadis chez certains hommes politiques assoiffés de pouvoir. D’autre part, comme l’ont démontré les succès électoraux de Vojislav Koštunica en Serbie et de Stjepan Mesic en Croatie lors des années 1990, il n’est désormais plus rentable sur les plans politique et économique d’être associé aux anciens leaders accusés ou condamnés pour crimes commis en temps de guerre[3]. En effet, malgré la pression de certaines franges endoctrinées souhaitant la réhabilitation d’anciens « héros » ultranationalistes, la crainte d’être isolé à l’échelle internationale suffit souvent à convaincre les leaders politiques de quitter les marges et de reconnaître la compétence des institutions judiciaires internationales telles que le TPIY et, plus récemment, la Cour pénale internationale (CPI).

Or, Akhavan…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Netzai Sandoval, un jeune avocat mexicain, se lance contre Goliath

Un avocat de 28 ans, Netzai Sandoval, a déposé le 25 novembre une plainte à la Cour pénale internationale contre des membres du gouvernement mexicain ainsi que des cartels de la drogue. En 8 mois de travail, il a amassé de la preuve sur 470 violations du droit international, montant un dossier de 700 pages. Il a reçu les signatures de 23 000 citoyens  mexicains pour appuyer sa plainte, ce nombre ayant aujourd’hui augmenté à 27 000. Toute l’information sur la plainte est disponible sur leur blogue.

Les plaintes déposées à la CPI proviennent généralement d’États. L’avocat a ainsi présenté une plainte avec l’objectif que Luis Moreno Ocampo, le Procureur en chef de la CPI, ouvre une enquête selon son pouvoir discrétionnaire de le faire (art. 15 du Statut de Rome). Le Procureur devra donc évaluer le sérieux de la preuve, et s’il est d’avis qu’il dispose de bases raisonnables pour ouvrir l’enquête, il devra demander une autorisation de la Chambre préliminaire. Celle-ci se prononcera également sur la base raisonnable de la demande.

Les violations auxquelles il réfère sont traduites par Global Voices, un blogue francophone : « Nous réclamons que la Cour enquête sur les disparitions, le recrutement d’enfants de moins de 15 ans, sur les exécutions sommaires opérées par des soldats, sur la mutilation en tant que forme d’intimidation, sur les attaques perpétrées contre la population civile, sur les déplacements…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Depoliticizing international criminal law

Realists frequently challenge the legitimacy of public international law as a bona fide legal discipline, contending that it is merely a political tool wielded by powerful states to enforce their diktats on the third-world. To Louis Henkin, “law is politics;”[1] elaborating on that theme, John Austin posited that international law is not really “law” because breaches do not engender legally-enforceable sanctions.[2] Such positions merit due attention, as they pose a serious challenge to efforts to promote adherence to international legal norms.

To respond effectively to Austin and Henkin, it is necessary to consider not only whether international law is possessed of “teeth”, but also the extent to which these teeth operate consistently and independently of political intervention. I will focus here on what I consider to be the two most significant developments in international criminal law over the last two decades: the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the Rome Statute of 1999, and the rise and fall of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction across various national legal systems. In many respects, both appear to have been rather successful in promoting individual accountability. For the first time, there exists a permanent and independent entity at the global level capable of prosecuting individuals charged with grave violations of international humanitarian law. Similarly, at the national level, many individual states have begun asserting the authority to prosecute such…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Bush, torture, and politics trumping law

Human rights and anti-war activists greeted former U.S. President George W. Bush’s visit to British Columbia last month with calls for his arrest. The demonstrators correctly asserted that Canada has a responsibility to investigate Bush for his role in the torture of detainees in U.S. custody.

A visit by former Vice President Dick Cheney in September received a similar welcome, as have other visits by Bush administration officials. Already in 2004, a group called Lawyers Against the War tried to bring torture charges against Bush by filing criminal charges.

The number of voices calling for investigation and prosecution is growing and now includes several mainstream human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. On the political stage, federal NDP Immigration critic Don Davis urged the government to deny Cheney entry into Canada.

The evidence against Bush and Cheney also continues to mount. The Canadian Centre for International Justice teamed up with the New York based Center for Constitutional Rights to file a 70-page draft indictment against Bush ahead of his visit to Canada. The indictment was accompanied by 4000 pages of evidence that described the U.S. program of extraordinary rendition, the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and secret CIA detention sites.

Bush himself has on various occasions admitted to authorizing torture techniques, such as waterboarding. In an interview with American journalist Matt Lauer, Bush claimed…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Does the ICTR contribute to long-lasting stability in Rwanda ?

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was created in November 1994, following a request by the Rwandan government to the Security Council. When  the Security Council adopted the resolution creating the ICTR, it stated that the members were “Convinced that in the particular circumstances of Rwanda, the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law would enable this aim to be achieved and would contribute to the process of national reconciliation and to the restoration and maintenance of peace”. Hence, social reconstruction was one of the objectives behind the creation of the institution.

There are disagreements on what the impacts of criminal prosecution of war criminals have on social reconstruction. While I think criminal prosecution can be helpful for achieving a social balance and helping the country build on that balance, I doubt that it is the case for the ICTR.

Since its creation, the ICTR has not made one indictment against the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the “winners” of the armed conflict in Rwanda. The RPF had been actively fighting the Hutu government a long time before the 1994 events, and  have been the government ever since winning the war and putting an end to the 1994 genocide.

Still, it has been widely reported that the RPF have also committed their share of international crimes. It is not to say that the ICTR prosecutors are partial…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Entretien avec Elise Groulx

Q : Pouvez-vous nous parler de votre travail au sein de l’Association internationale des avocats de la défense?

R : Créée en 1997, l’Association internationale des avocats de la défense est une organisation internationale non-gouvernementale, avec un statut consultatif auprès du Conseil Économique et Social (ECOSOC) des Nations unies, de l’Organisation des États américains (OÉA) et bientôt auprès de l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). La mission de l’AIAD est de renforcer le pilier de la défense au sein des tribunaux pénaux internationaux et elle s’est fait à ce titre la championne de la présomption d’innocence et du plein respect du droit à un procès juste et équitable. Nous travaillons d’arrache-pied depuis près de 15 ans pour assurer la garantie et le véritable exercice des droits fondamentaux de la défense devant les instances pénales internationales.

Les activités de l’AIAD sont composées de plusieurs volets. L’AIAD s’est d’abord fait connaître par ses travaux d’advocacy en participant aux commissions préparatoires (PrepCom) qui ont entouré la création de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI). L’AIAD a fait des propositions qui ont été retenues et qui font maintenant partie du Règlement de Preuve et de Procédure de la CPI. Ces propositions ont entre autres consacré la reconnaissance de l’indépendance de la profession juridique au sein du nouveau système de justice.

L’AIAD s’est aussi vue octroyer le statut d’Amicus curiae dans cinq affaires devant le Tribunal pénal international…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Sudan, Libya, and (Inter)national Criminal Punishment

At the national level, “courts and prosecutors are bound to serve the interests of society in general and, to some ambiguous and debated degree, the interests of victims.”[1] At the international level this complexity is even more pronounced, as at least one more injured party is introduced to the mix. By definition, the negative impact of international crime is felt not just by its immediate victims and the States in which it transpires, but also by the international community.

On 26 February 2011, the UN Security Council unanimously referred the situation in Libya to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).[2] Just under six years ago, the Security Council referred the situation in Sudan to the ICC.[3] Both referrals were made pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, that is, in response to a threat to international peace and security.[4] Neither Libya nor Sudan are States Parties to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s foundational document, and both retain and use the death penalty as a mode of criminal punishment.[5]

Both States’ retention of the death penalty, far more remarkable today than it would have been years ago, is markedly at odds with the ICC’s relatively lenient sentencing scheme, whose most severe punishment is a term of life imprisonment,[6] to be served under conditions “consistent with widely accepted international treaty standards governing treatment…

Continue reading this entry ➔

On Kenya and State-funded Defences of ICC Accused

Recently, it was reported that the Kenyan government was considering financing the defences of the six Kenyans whom the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has recently applied to have summoned to the Court on the basis of evidence that they participated in crimes against humanity during the post-election violence of 2007-2008.  More recently, Kenya, with the support of the African Union (AU), has announced its desire to have the investigation deferred by the Security Council, pursuant to Article 16 of the Rome Statute.  Indeed, on February 2^nd 2011 AU Commissioner, Jean Ping, sent the UN Security Council a letter requesting the deferral.[1]

Despite committing to the creation of a special tribunal for the post-election violence in December 2008, to date, the Kenyan government has failed to establish national trials and the special tribunal has yet to materialize.  Under pressure created by the Prosecutor’s application, Kenya is once again suggesting that it will create such a tribunal.  Even if the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any or all of the suspects have committed the crimes alleged in the Prosecutor’s application and so grants the application,[2] the positions of the Kenyan administration and the AU seem sure to interfere with any further progress.

A point of particular interest in the ICC’s fraught relationship with the Kenyan government is the fierce…

Continue reading this entry ➔

The Canadian Government & Omar Khadr’s Plight

On 25 October 2010, more than 8 years after being brought into US custody, Omar Khadr, pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying. On 31 October a Military Commission at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, sentenced him to 40 years in confinement. 

Mr. Khadr, however, will be imprisoned for a maximum of 8 years, on account of a plea agreement[1] which was signed, at least in part, on the understanding that, having served no less than a year of his sentence in the U.S., the Canadian Government would be amenable to an application to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada, subject to Canadian rules of parole.  On 23 October the Government of Canada, in a diplomatic note[2] to the U.S. Government, expressed its “inclination to favourably consider” such an application.

The terms of the plea agreement are severe.  Among other things, Mr. Khadr waived any claim to credit for time served, agreed to direct counsel to submit a motion to dismiss his petition for habeas corpus in his case pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as all claims currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  In addition, while…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Privacy in Switzerland Under Threat from the IRS

Woody Allen once said, “If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.” For decades, the notion of having a Swiss bank account has been viewed as a status symbol.  With roughly 27% of the world’s foreign holdings in 2008 (an estimated $2 trillion – Bondi, Bradley J. 2010), the Swiss have certainly cornered the international market on discretely protecting assets.  In short, Switzerland has been the prestigious place for Americans to hide money from the IRS.  But thanks to proceedings between the IRS and the Swiss Parliament, such references may soon become no more than an outdated joke.

This past summer, the IRS took serious steps in an international attempt to cut down on tax evasion through the use of offshore accounts in Switzerland. The IRS has entered into an agreement with the Swiss Parliament to release over 4,000 names of U.S. citizen clients of UBS AG with significant holdings in Switzerland.

The trouble began when the IRS decided to investigate UBS for helping Americans evade US taxes.  UBS was facing potential criminal prosecution, which could have threatened the very existence of one of the largest and well-reputed banks of our time.  In a move to save the bank, UBS executives pressured the Swiss government for ways around the secrecy banking laws to give the…

Continue reading this entry ➔