2023 – ILBC DATABASE

Leuven Assize Court, Prosecutor v former Guatemalan State officials, Nr. FD30.98.000213-03, 14 December 2023

On 14 December 2023, the Assize Court of Flemish Brabant convicted in absentia five former high-ranking military and political leaders from Guatemala and sentenced them to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity committed against four Flemish missionaries.

The Court established that the killings formed part of a “widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population,” within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute, to which Article 136ter of the Belgian Criminal Code refers. It situated these acts within the broader context of the Guatemalan civil war (1960–1996), noting that the facts at issue were committed between 1980 and 1982. During this protracted conflict, large numbers of civilians were subjected to grave human rights violations, including abductions, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances. Against this background, the Court concluded that the murders were not isolated acts but part of a larger pattern of violence, thereby qualifying them as crimes against humanity. This classification was also significant from a procedural standpoint, as such international crimes are not subject to statutes of limitation and are therefore imprescriptible.

With regard to the mode of liability, the Court relied, inter alia, on the doctrine of “Joint Criminal Enterprise” (JCE), reportedly for the first time in Belgian legal practice. Under this mode of liability, all participants in a collective criminal plan (regardless of their rank or level of direct involvement) can be held equally responsible for crimes committed in furtherance of the common purpose. By applying this doctrine, the Court attributed responsibility to the accused not only for their own actions but also for the acts carried out by others within the framework of the shared criminal enterprise.

All five accused were sentenced to life imprisonment, reflecting both the gravity of the crimes and their central role in the underlying criminal conduct.

Download

Supreme Court, D. R. vs Republic of Mauritius, Nr. C.22.0012.F, 6 April 2023

The case concerns a French-Mauritian dual national who initiated arbitral proceedings against Mauritius under the 1973 France–Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), alleging several treaty breaches. In 2018, however, the arbitral tribunal, having its seat in Brussels, found it lacked jurisdiction on the grounds that dual nationals of the two State parties fall outside the BIT’s personal scope of application, even though the treaty does not expressly address this issue. The investor sought annulment of the award before the Brussels Tribunal of First Instance, yet without success.

Contrary to the claimant, the Supreme Court held that the contested judgment had relied on the 2010 BIT between France and Mauritius – which excludes dual nationals from its scope but had not yet entered into force – not to determine the scope of the 1973 Treaty, but rather as an element revealing the common intention of the States Parties, at least as of 2010.

The Supreme Court further accepted that the contested judgment could rightly consider the customary norm excluding diplomatic protection for dual nationals as a “relevant rule of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” in the sense of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) for purposes of interpreting the 1973 BIT. By contrast, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its First Additional Protocol did not qualify as such, as Mauritius was not bound by these instruments.

With respect to the reliance on national legislation as a “supplementary means of interpretation” under Article 32 VCLT, the Supreme Court rejected that supplementary means can be used only when the interpretation pursuant to Article 31 VCLT leaves the matter ambiguous or results in an outcome that is manifestly absurd (as they can be used to confirm an interpretation pursuant to Article 31 VCLT). On the other hand, it held that the reference to “preparatory work” in Article 32 is merely illustrative and that other supplementary means of interpretation may also be considered.

Download