Search results

It is well accepted in international law that Heads of State, Heads of Government and ministers of Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity from prosecution by virtue of the office that they hold. This immunity extends to acts committed in an official capacity whilst in office, after they have left office. In recent years, however, this concept of functional immunity has been challenged by allegations that former government officials have committed international crimes whilst in office. In what has been hailed as a ‘landmark’ decision, the Federal Criminal Court of Switzerland considered that the former Algerian Minister of Defence, who is charged with having committed war crimes and torture whilst in office in 1992-1993, is not entitled to immunity before the Swiss courts. In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered that it would be contrary for international law to prohibit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity as fundamental norms but then to allow for a broad interpretation of functional immunity the result of which would be that beneficiaries of this immunity would be immune from prosecution even where they allegedly committed such crimes. 

The current case, the first case for genocide charges before a Dutch court, took place against the Rwandan Yvonne Basebya. She comes from a wealthy family and married with Augustin Basebya, a high-ranking politician for the National Revolutionary Movement for Development (NRMD). Rwandan authorities alerted the Netherlands about Augustin being listed as wanted in Rwanda in 2007. Investigations followed, leading to Yvonne being suspected as well; ultimately, Yvonne was arrested in 2010 on suspicion of involvement in the Rwandan genocide.

The District Court of The Hague ruled on 1 March 2013 that Yvonne’s guilt on several of the (complicity in, and conspiracy to commit) genocide and war crimes charges could not be established. However, her repeated singing in public of the notorious anti-Tutsi song “Tubatsembatsembe” (meaning: “Let us eliminate them”) before the youth, unemployed and lower or uneducated and using her local notable upper-class position, combined with her repeatedly (even until the day of the judgment) expressed hatred against the Tutsis, did qualify as incitement to genocide. She was sentenced to six years and eight months in prison pursuant to the Dutch War Crimes Act: the maximum sentence at the time (which the Court regretted, noting that the 2003 International Crimes Act which replaced the War Crimes Act had changed this to 30 years).

Mr Raslan was accused of committing crimes against humanity, torture, rape, sexual coercion, murder, and numerous other serious crimes in violation of international law. In 2022, the Koblenz Higher Regional Court convicted him for his part in Syria’s violent suppression of oppositionists and sentenced him to life in prison. Mr Raslan appealed his conviction on several grounds, which the present Appeals Order assessed.

First, Mr Raslan argued that since he was acting on behalf of the Syrian government, his actions should be immune to prosecution. The court disagreed, stating that acting under the direction of the state does not provide immunity for the commission of international crimes. Second, Mr Raslan argued that allowing the prosecution to read a UN Commission of Inquiry report to establish much of the factual background violated a rule that normally requires an individual to testify to their findings. The court disagreed and applied an exception that allows reports from public authorities to be read in court without calling the authors to testify. The court reasoned that the United Nations is to be treated on a par with any German public authority, and as a public authority, its reports are generally considered reliable. It also explained that the experts who drafted the reports would likely have little to add beyond what is already written, so requiring them to testify would be unreasonably burdensome without providing any real benefit.

Third, Mr Raslan challenged several of his convictions on multiple grounds. The court reduced a conviction of rape to sexual coercion because, at the time the crime was committed, the law required Mr Raslan to be physically present, which he was not. The court also overturned two counts of sexual coercion because those two crimes were already tried correctly in his conviction for crimes against humanity. In other words, he cannot be convicted of the same crime twice. Two counts of sexually abusing prisoners were reduced to aiding and abetting the sexual abuse of prisoners because, like his former rape conviction, the law at the time required that he be physically present, and he was not. Finally, his last count of sexual abuse of a prisoner was overturned and dismissed because the government only has five years after the crime to bring charges for this offense.

Mr Raslan’s sentence of life imprisonment remained unaltered.

In March 2003, a military coalition led by the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of President Saddam Hussein. Coalition forces remained in Iraq as an occupying force, engaging in the process of rebuilding the country. During the occupation, the US military contracted with several private military contractors for a wide array of services the US military simply had no manpower for, due to the implications of the occupation and rebuilding process. The use of these contractors has led to certain controversy, mainly because of multiple instances where they were hired to supervise detention centres or to provide security services and ended up torturing or unlawfully killing civilians. These practices led to three big law suits by groups of Iraqis who had allegedly been tortured in prisons guarded and/or maintained by private contractors: Saleh v. Titan Corp., Al-Shimari v. CACI Inc., and the current case Al-Quraishi v. Nakhla & L-3 Services Inc.

The current case revolves around L-3 Services, Inc., a U.S. company that was hired to provide civilian translators of Arabic in connection with military operations. These translators worked at, among other places, military prisons and detention facilities in Iraq, such as the Abu Ghraib prison – notorious for the torturing of detainees – just outside of Baghdad. Adel Nakhla, a U.S. citizen from Egyptian origin, was one of the translators working for L-3 Services at Abu Ghraib. Plaintiffs – 72 Iraqis who were arrested between July 2003 and May 2008 by coalition forces and held for periods varying from less than a month to more than four years at various military-run detention facilities in Iraq, including the Abu Ghraib prison – alleged that they were innocent and that they were eventually released from custody without being charged with any crimes. They filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for Maryland, accusing L-3 Services and its employees (including Nakhla) of war crimes, torture and other (systematic) maltreatment committed against them during their custody. These abuses included beatings, hanging by the hands and feet, electrical shocks, mock executions, dragging across rough ground, threats of death and rape, sleep deprivation, abuse of the genitals, forced nudity, dousing with cold water, stress positions, sexual assault, confinement in small spaces, and sensory deprivation. They also alleged that their individual mistreatment occurred as part of a larger conspiracy involving L-3 Services and its employees, certain members of the military, and other private contractors. L-3 Services and Nakhla responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from prosecution and, relying on the political question doctrine, that the Court had no competence to hear the complaint.

The Court disagreed with defendants. On 29 June 2010, it rejected the motions to dismiss, noting that the alleged behaviour violated national and international law and that defendants, who were private contractors, could not rely on the political question doctrine. The case was deferred for further review under Iraqi law.

In the ‘Context’ case, a large terrorism case in the Netherlands, nine individuals were found guilty of various terrorism offences, ranging from online incitement to the recruitment of individuals to travel to Syria. This case arose out of investigations into the flow of foreign fighters from the Netherlands – namely people heading to Syria in order to join various terrorist groups, including ISIS and al-Nusra. The prosecution successfully argued that an organisation existed in the Netherlands that aimed at recruiting other people to support terrorist groups in Syria and to travel to join the fighting. The case also looked into the use of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, and its role in recruiting individuals.

The nine accused, including several individuals who had travelled to Syria, faced charges concerning incitement to join terrorist groups, the dissemination of inciting materials, the recruitment of people to travel to Syria, the participation in training to commit terrorist crimes, participation in a criminal and terrorist organisation, and other charges relating to inciting hate and defamation. The defendants were all convicted of differing offences and their sentences ranged from seven days’ to six years’ imprisonment.