Lawyers for the 23 survivors of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres intend
to appeal today's decision by Belgium's Appeals Court. It is important to
note that in halting further criminal investigation of the case, the Appeals Court did not cite the logical principles or moral underpinnings of the complaint lodged last June, but rather, based their decision on a surprising legal technicality, one which eviscerates the intention and significance of the 1993 and 1999 Belgian legislation on universal jurisdiction.
The following critical analysis of today's decision, issued by Amnesty
International, succinctly illuminates the key issues and contradictions
underlying the Appeals Court's thinking, which, in fact, reflect the current
contentious state of debate surrounding the progressive evolution of
international criminal prosecution. At issue is the following question:
Which is to be given more weight in deciding whether to investigate and
prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity: the needs, interests and
rights of states, or the needs, interests and rights of individuals victimized by states or states' officials?
Given that the subject of International Humanitarian Law is the individual(i.e., civilians), it seems that there should be less debate and confusion
in answering this question than we witnessed in today's disappointing
decision in Brussels.
Laurie King-Irani, Ph.D.: North American Coordinator,
International Campaign for Justice for the Victims of Sabra and Shatila
to appeal today's decision by Belgium's Appeals Court. It is important to
note that in halting further criminal investigation of the case, the Appeals Court did not cite the logical principles or moral underpinnings of the complaint lodged last June, but rather, based their decision on a surprising legal technicality, one which eviscerates the intention and significance of the 1993 and 1999 Belgian legislation on universal jurisdiction.
The following critical analysis of today's decision, issued by Amnesty
International, succinctly illuminates the key issues and contradictions
underlying the Appeals Court's thinking, which, in fact, reflect the current
contentious state of debate surrounding the progressive evolution of
international criminal prosecution. At issue is the following question:
Which is to be given more weight in deciding whether to investigate and
prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity: the needs, interests and
rights of states, or the needs, interests and rights of individuals victimized by states or states' officials?
Given that the subject of International Humanitarian Law is the individual(i.e., civilians), it seems that there should be less debate and confusion
in answering this question than we witnessed in today's disappointing
decision in Brussels.
Laurie King-Irani, Ph.D.: North American Coordinator,
International Campaign for Justice for the Victims of Sabra and Shatila