The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The universal jurisdiction of French justice at the heart of a hearing before the Court of Cassation

2023-03-17T12:25:32.976Z


The Court of Cassation, seized of appeals from two Syrians accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes, looked into the question on Friday...


The Court of Cassation, hearing appeals from two Syrians accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes, considered Friday the question of the universal jurisdiction of French justice, at the heart of the proceedings against the two men.

The highest court of the judiciary will deliver its judgments on May 12.

These will be of crucial importance for a whole series of proceedings in the crimes against humanity section of the Paris court.

The Court examined the case of Abdulhamid Chaban, a former Syrian soldier indicted for complicity in crimes against humanity in February 2019, and that of Majdi Nema, a Syrian prosecuted for torture and war crimes.

Both dispute the facts.

Problem of "double jeopardy"

In November 2021, the Court, already seized of the Chaban case, had considered that French justice was incompetent in this case, invoking the principle of "double

incrimination

" provided for in the law of August 9, 2010: crimes against humanity and war crimes must be recognized in the country of origin of a suspect whom France intends to prosecute.

However, Syria does not recognize these crimes and has not ratified the Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court.

This judgment had caused an earthquake in the judicial world and human rights organizations and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) had opposed it for a procedural reason, allowing the case to be returned to the Court of Cassation.

In the case of Majdi Nema, former spokesperson for the rebel group Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam), arrested in January 2020 in Marseilles where he was on a study trip, the Paris Court of Appeal maintained his indictment in April 2022, considering in particular that Syrian law provided "

by equivalence

" for several war crimes and offenses defined in the French Penal Code.

"Restrictive" interpretation

During the hearing before the Court of Cassation, the parties turned to the "

intentions of the legislator

" when he had imposed this criterion of double incrimination, as well as that of "

habitual residence

", also invoked by the defense of Majdi Nema to challenge his indictment.

Based on the parliamentary debates that preceded the adoption of this law, Me Emmanuel Piwnica, FIDH lawyer, considered that double incrimination did “not

mean that the facts should “

receive an identical qualification

”.

According to Me Gilles Thouvenin, lawyer for Abdulhamid Chaban, on the contrary, “

the public authorities adhere to a restrictive interpretation of universal jurisdiction

”.

François Molins, Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, advocated the rejection of the appeals.

Source: lefigaro

All news articles on 2023-03-17

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.