State of Play of Existing Instruments for Combating Impunity for International Crimes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STUDY Requested by the DROI subcommittee State of play of existing instruments for combating impunity for international crimes @Adobe Stock Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 603.499 - August 2020 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY State of play of existing instruments for combating impunity for international crimes The European Union and its Member States have been at the forefront of the fight against impunity for core international crimes, collectively providing political, technical and financial assistance to international, regional and domestic accountability efforts. Focusing on the current EU framework on accountability and six country situations (Rwanda, Colombia, Venezuela, Myanmar, Syria and Iraq), this study offers recommendations to guide future EU policy and the engagement of the European Parliament in the fight against impunity. The recommendations include enhancing the capacity, efficiency and coordination of EU institutions working on accountability, as well as encouraging comprehensive, impartial and inclusive approaches to country situations. EU action in bilateral and multilateral fora is also covered, with a view to enhancing the universal reach of accountability mechanisms and the protection of their integrity, encouraging cooperation and assistance, and to upholding the principle of complementarity. EP/EXPO/B/COMMITTEE/FWC/ 2019-01/LOT6/R/01 EN August 2020 - PE 603.499 © European Union, 2020 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies This paper was requested by the European Parliament's subcommittee on Human Rights English-language manuscript was completed on 13 August 2020. Printed in Belgium. Author: Olympia BEKOU, Professor of Public International Law, School of Law, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. With the assistance of: Emma SHEFFIELD and Edoardo Gabriele VACCA, Doctoral Candidates, School of Law, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom Coordinator: Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA) Official Responsible: Marika LERCH Editorial Assistant: Daniela ADORNA DIAZ Feedback of all kind is welcome. Please write to: [email protected]. To obtain copies, please send a request to: [email protected] This paper will be published on the European Parliament's online database, 'Think tank'. The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. ISBN: 978-92-846-7030-7 (pdf) ISBN: 978-92-846-7031-4 (paper) doi:10.2861/22063 (pdf) doi:10.2861/418381 (paper) Catalogue number: QA-04-20-467-EN-N (pdf) Catalogue number: QA-04-20-467-EN-C (paper) State of play of existing instruments for combating impunity for international crimes Table of contents Executive summary 6 1. Introduction and methodology 10 2. Overview of existing accountability mechanisms 11 2.1 The ad hoc International Tribunals 11 2.1.1 Prosecutions and convictions 12 2.1.2 Fundamental rights 12 2.1.3 Cooperation and assistance 13 2.1.4 Accountability to affected populations 13 2.2 The International Criminal Court 14 2.2.1 Universality 14 2.2.2 Prosecutions and convictions 15 2.2.3 Fundamental rights 16 2.2.4 Cooperation and assistance 17 2.2.5 Complementarity 18 2.2.6 Accountability to affected populations 18 2.3 Hybrid Courts and Specialised Chambers in Domestic Courts 18 2.3.1 Prosecutions and convictions 19 2.3.2 Fundamental rights 21 2.3.3 Cooperation and assistance 22 2.3.4 Accountability to affected populations 23 2.4 Universal jurisdiction 23 2.5 United Nations evidentiary mechanisms 24 2.6 The role of Human Rights Courts and of the International Court of Justice 25 3. Overview of the EU policy framework 26 3.1 Universal reach of accountability mechanisms 30 3.2 Integrity of accountability mechanisms 32 3.3 Cooperation with, and assistance to, accountability mechanisms 33 3.4 Complementarity 35 3 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies 4. Country situations 37 4.1 Rwanda 37 4.1.1 The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 37 4.1.2 The Specialised Chamber for International Crimes 39 4.1.3 Universal jurisdiction 41 4.2 Colombia 42 4.2.1 The Colombia situation before the ICC 43 4.2.2 The Jurisdiction for Justice and Peace 44 4.2.3 The Special Jurisdiction for Peace 45 4.2.4 The Colombian domestic courts 46 4.3 Venezuela 47 4.3.1 The first ICC preliminary examination on Venezuela 48 4.3.2 The Venezuela I situation before the ICC 49 4.3.3 The Venezuela II situation before the ICC 49 4.3.4 Domestic investigations and prosecutions in Venezuela 50 4.3.5 Universal jurisdiction 50 4.3.6 Other international initiatives 51 4.4 Myanmar 51 4.4.1 The Bangladesh/Myanmar situation before the ICC 53 4.4.2 Domestic investigations and courts martial 54 4.4.3 The Independent Commission of Enquiry 54 4.4.4 Universal jurisdiction 55 4.4.5 The Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) 56 4.4.6 The Gambia v Myanmar case before the International Court of Justice 57 4.5 Syria 57 4.5.1 The prospects for justice at the International Criminal Court 58 4.5.2 Universal Jurisdiction 59 4.5.3 The International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011 (IIIM) 61 4.5.4 Engagement with civil society and focus on transitional justice 64 4 State of play of existing instruments for combating impunity for international crimes 4.5.5 The United Nations Headquarters Board of Inquiry to investigate incidents of international humanitarian law violations in North-West Syria 66 4.6 Iraq 66 4.6.1 The Iraqi domestic courts 67 4.6.2 The United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh/Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (UNITAD) 69 4.6.3 Universal jurisdiction 71 4.6.4 The proposal for an ad hoc tribunal to address crimes committed by the so-called Islamic State 72 5. Conclusion 74 6. Recommendations for future EU action 80 6.1 General recommendations 80 6.2 Universal reach of accountability mechanisms 80 6.3 Integrity of accountability mechanisms 81 6.4 Cooperation and assistance 81 6.5 Complementarity 82 7. Recommendations for the European Parliament 82 7.1 General recommendations 82 7.2 Universal reach 82 7.3 Integrity 83 7.4 Cooperation and assistance 83 7.5 Complementarity 83 8. Bibliography 84 8.1 Books and articles 84 8.1 Table of treaties 101 8.2 Table of case law 102 8.3 Other documents 103 5 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies Executive summary The European Union (EU) has taken a leading role in combating impunity for core international crimes and has supported international and domestic accountability efforts. Together with the Member States, the EU has consistently invested in the necessary political, financial and technical capital beginning with the revival of international criminal justice with the ad hoc Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The EU has shown political leadership and been a staunch supporter of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). It continues to work towards universal ratification of the Rome Statute, which would provide the Court with a global reach. Acknowledging the importance of addressing crimes in the countries where they have taken place, the EU has also supported and continues to support hybrid courts and specialised chambers in domestic courts. Examples span the globe, including: the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the Special Criminal Court for the Central African Republic, the Kosovo Specialised Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, and the Jurisdiction for Justice and Peace and the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia. The EU has also encouraged its Member States in their efforts as leaders in providing accountability by applying the principle of universal jurisdiction. Under this principle, a State exercises jurisdiction over an offence which occurred outside its territory, based on the nature of the offence. Recognising the importance of new solutions to situations that are currently beyond the reach of international criminal justice, the EU has been among the biggest supporters of the UN Evidentiary Mechanisms for Syria, Iraq and Myanmar. In this context of staunch EU support for accountability, the role of the EU and its contribution to the fight against impunity for core international crimes is explored. Firstly, by analysing the EU policy framework for accountability and its operationalisation in practise. Secondly, by considering in-depth the EU’s engagement in six country situations: Rwanda, Colombia, Venezuela, Myanmar, Syria and Iraq. The primary research method was desktop research, enriched with seventeen semi-structured elite interviews with participants selected for their experience and past or current role, in order to gain essential insights into EU institutions, accountability mechanisms and related work fighting impunity for core international crimes. Drawing on both the desktop research and data analysis, the study concludes with a set of recommendations for future EU policies which include targeted recommendations to the European Parliament. The EU has a wealth of tools at its disposal and through several of its bodies, such as the Genocide Network, is fully engaged in the fight against impunity. Whilst coordinating the EU response remains a challenge, consistent informal liaising between delegations and headquarters could be a solution.