Residency test

It is time to close the UK’s loopholes on prosecution of atrocity crimes

In July, the government announced its decision to expand the jurisdiction of our courts to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This followed amendments to the Coroners and Justice Bill tabled by Lord Carlile QC, Baroness D’Souza and Lord Falconer QC. It was also a response to a decision by the High Court back in April, which ruled that four Rwandans, currently living in the UK and suspected of genocide in 1994, could not be extradited to face trial in Rwanda. This caused a real upset because, while they could not be extradited for fair trial reasons, neither could they be prosecuted in the United Kingdom. Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity can only be prosecuted in this country if they were committed after 2001.

This is the loophole that the government’s announcement sought to close. The planned changes would give our courts jurisdiction for crimes of this nature committed since 1991. When it comes to ending impunity for mass atrocities, this bold move by the government is as significant as the War Crimes Act 1991 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001. In practice it means that the four Rwandan suspects, currently in legal limbo, could now face trial in the UK.

But even after the reform, there remain serious loopholes in our laws on atrocity crimes. As things stand, you can only be prosecuted for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity if you are a UK national or resident. If you are on a tourist visa, business visa or student visa, you are immune.

A simple ‘presence’ test for prosecution, as called for by an esteemed cross-party section of Lords as well as the Joint Committee on Human Rights, would solve this problem. It would bring us into line with other common law countries, including Canada, New Zealand and South Africa and the United States. It would also bring our laws on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity into line with our laws on torture, hostage taking and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. For these latter three crimes, the UK courts do not apply a residency test for prosecution.

In June, Aegis published a report that brought together, for the first time, details of people entering the UK who are suspected of international crimes. The report examines 18 cases, including those of suspected genocidaires from Rwanda, alleged torturers from Zimbabwe, Iraq, Liberia and the Congo, and alleged war criminals from Afghanistan, Sudan, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka. Under current law, and even with the government’s proposed changes, many of these people would still be immune from prosecution in the United Kingdom.

During the last stages of the passage of the Coroners and Justice Bill this autumn, the government has the opportunity to finally break down all barriers to prosecution of these terrible crimes. It should make it clear that it will respond to every credible allegation of the presence in the United Kingdom of any individual who may have committed these crimes. If these suspects cannot be extradited or deported, they must be prosecuted here.

If you would like to find out more about the Aegis Trust campaign to strengthen UK law on international crimes or if you would like to take action, please click here.

Anna Macdonald is senior policy and campaigns officer at Aegis Trust

19 Aug 2009 11:51

 

Comments

• Posted by WilliamCobbett on 20 August 2009, 9:37:36 PM I don’t trust any AEGIS - the cloak of the ruthlessly partisan goddess Athene (Aeschylus and Euripides, passim) Why not? Because it encourages the ‘cruise missile liberals’ to elevate themselves/our selves to the status of gods. There is far too much of this already. Robin Cook ruthlessly proclaimed that it was in no way the function of the ICTY to indict Clinton or Blair, thus in effect, admitting their guilt in the Rambouillet diktat and the false-prospectus war against Serbia. At the Reform Club during that war I heard Jamie Shea, chief NATO propagandist, admit to - nay boast of -the misinformation and downright lies fed to the fawning media. All lies. Cook’s resignation over the aggression against Iraq (similar falsehoods, similar fraudulent propaganda, similar unprovoked aggression) came far too late. The unprovoked aggression against Afghanistan, lynch vengeance and still “an emotional spasm rather than a policy”; is not the least of the NATO conspiracies to commit aggression - the main war charge of the Nuremberg indictment. The Brit media complain that the luckless executants of this criminal aggression don’t have enough weapons. Helicopters are the close combat weapon of choice of the Anglo-American genocidalists against nonQuisling Afghans. Why should any Muslim or other third World person - or honest person anywhere for that matter - regard this piece of moralistic posing as anything other than it is - a shameless piece of swindling designed to subjugate further any people whose leaders are not prepared to play Quisling to the NATO quest for world domination? MacDonald’s plea will deserve hearing when and only when Bush, Clinton and Blair (amongst other NATO leaders) - are led into the dock in handcuffs. Until then her AEGISry will be simply the cloak of the AngloAmerican quest to suborn every international body - NATO, the UN and any other - to their self-deceiving crusade.