Universal jurisdiction allows third countries anywhere in the world to try perpetrators of serious international crimes regardless of the location of the crimes and irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. It is based on the recognition that certain crimes are so horrific- genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and enforced disappearances- that they affect the international community as a whole. International treaties, such as the Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, ratified by the majority of all AU Member States, oblige all States Parties to exercise universal jurisdiction.
Universal jurisdiction, as some argue, is not a ‘neo colonialist’ tool used by the West to prosecute Africans. Rather, it a jurisdiction of last resort, used to bridge the impunity gap resulting of a national court’s unwillingness or inability to act and therefore in line with Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act of the AU. It is a key instrument to provide victims of the most horrific crimes with an access to justice where they have nowhere else to turn. Universal jurisdiction was applied in Europe, for example to charge Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense for war crimes and torture committed in the context of the ‘war of terror’, and universal jurisdiction is currently examined in the context of war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by Israel during its recent military operation in Gaza.
Universal jurisdiction has further been instrumental to ensure justice for survivors of the Rwandan genocide who could not turn to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda nor to Rwanda, in particular as the latter’s judicial system was not in a position to deal with hundreds of thousands of cases after the genocide. Indeed, Rwanda is supporting the exercise of universal jurisdiction by third countries and cooperates closely with authorities in Europe, US and Canada to ensure that genociders do not benefit from impunity by simply fleeing abroad. The African Union itself relied on universal jurisdiction when it called on Senegal to prosecute Hissène Habré, former Chadian dictator, ‘in the name of Africa’. President Wade said it would do so, yet Chadian victims are still waiting for the case to start before Senegalese courts, almost 19 years since Habré had fled to Senegal.
The AU should promptly press Senegal to move forward on the trial of Hissène Habré, thereby sending an important signal of its commitment to the fight against impunity, of universal jurisdiction and of Africa’s willingness to try perpetrators of human rights abuses in Africa.
The AU plays an important role in the dialogue with the relevant European Union and United Nations institutions to advance the global commitment to the fight against impunity. The FIDH therefore urges the AU and its member states to use this role to render the fight against impunity more effective, to support and not to limit the exercise of universal jurisdiction, to cooperate closely with national authorities of third countries and to render absolute support to national and international authorities in the investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.