Search results

Post-apartheid South Africa continues to be faced with the difficult question on how to deal with past human rights violations. From 1999 until 2005, the South Africa Prosecution Authority attempted to have Wouter Basson convicted. Basson was head of the secret chemical and biological warfare project during the apartheid era. He was charged with a variety of crimes, including murder, fraud and dealing drugs. After several charges were dismissed and Basson was acquitted of all other charges, the prosecutor sought permission to appeal. The prosecutor argued that the trial judge should have stepped back from the case, as the prosecutor had accused him of being biased. Also, the prosecutor held that several charges should not have been dismissed and that the bail records should have been admitted during the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeal had denied this request, after which the prosecutor turned to the Constitutional Court.

In the preliminary ruling under review here, the Court refused to grant permission to appeal, although it did held that the issues raised by the prosecution were constitutional matters. Therefore, the Court ruled, these issues fell within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. 

Post-apartheid South Africa continues to be faced with the difficult question on how to deal with past human rights violations. From 1999 until 2005, the South Africa Prosecution Authority attempted to have Wouter Basson convicted. Basson was head of the secret chemical and biological warfare project during the apartheid era. He was charged with a variety of crimes, including murder, fraud and dealing drugs. After several charges were dismissed and Basson was acquitted of all other charges, the prosecutor sought permission to appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal had denied this request, after which the prosecutor turned to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court granted leave to appeal, as it considered that the trial court had erred in dismissing charges against Basson regarding conspiracy to murder abroad. The trial court had held that since the conspired crimes were committed abroad, Basson could not be tried for conspiracy in South Africa. The Constitutional Court rejected that reasoning, stating that there was a close link between South Africa and the crimes committed.  

Hissène Habré was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until 1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, through its political police, the Bureau of Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)), caused the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals. Residing in exile in Senegal, he was unsuccessfully brought before the Senegalese courts in 2000-2001 at which time the Supreme Court of Senegal confirmed that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the acts allegedly committed by Habré were not criminalised under domestic law. In response to an African Union mandate to prosecute Habré, Senegal amended its legislation to provide for universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and acts of torture committed by foreign nationals outside of Senegalese territory.

Habré brought a complaint against Senegal before the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of States of West Africa alleging that the new legislation breached his human rights, including the principle of non-retroactivity of the criminal law. The Court held, in a decision that has been criticised for lack of legal basis, that Senegal would violate the principle of non-retroactivity if its tried Habré in its domestic courts. Instead, international custom mandates that Senegal establish a special tribunal to try and prosecute Habté. 

We often associate genocide with the act of killing members of a specific group, of which there have been many devastating examples throughout history. However, according to the Genocide Convention, other acts can also be regarded as genocide, if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, specific groups. In this case, the plaintiff held that building a bridge to Hindmarsh in South Australia would impede on the culture and way-of-life of the Ngarrindjeri in such a dramatic way that it would lead to the destruction of this group. However, at that point, genocide was not a crime under Australian national law. The plaintiff therefore invoked legislation from the UK, arguing that application of this legislation was possible because of the fact that the UK preceded the current Commonwealth of Australia in governing the Australian continent and its adjacent islands. The judge did not accept this argument and reiterated that even when international law prohibits genocide, someone can only be found guilty of genocide if national legislation explicitly prohibits genocide. The claim was denied.

In 2002, with the adoption of the International Criminal Court Act 2002, genocide became a crime under Australian law.