Real History and the Real War Criminals

Posted Saturday, January 18, 2003

Alphabetical index (text) Index to the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech

Last February the international court of justice ruled that past and present government leaders could not be tried for war crimes by a foreign state. . .

Friday January 17, 2003

Lord Nelson sees nothing

Belgium may revive Sharon war crimes case

Andrew Osborn in Brussels

BELGIUM is to make changes to its internationally contentious global war crimes legislation which risk resurrecting a politically sensitive case against the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon.

Belgium gave itself the right in 1993 to try cases of war crimes committed by anyone, anywhere at any time. It has since had to deal with a series of often embarrassing lawsuits against high-profile leaders such as Mr Sharon.

However, legal setbacks to the "universal competence" law have blunted Belgium's zeal to act as an international war crimes court.

Last June a Belgian court appeared to kill off the case against Mr Sharon when it declared that he could not be tried because he wasn't physically present in Belgium.

That obstacle now appears likely to be dismantled.

Belgian politicians want foreign nationals to be be tried in absentia and will vote on the matter next week. They aim to change the law before parliamentary elections in May.

"The Sharon case is one of many," said Philippe Mahoux, a Socialist senator involved with the initiative, adding that 26 cases remained outstanding, including those against Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat.

"We want to sweep away impunity when it comes to genocide and war crimes. That's the idea and we have the firm intention of approving the changes [to the law] before May," he said yesterday.

Guy Verhoftstadt, the Belgian prime minister, has thrown his weight behind the plan, saying he has "no objections", and the Belgian media say that the calls for reform of the controversial law are reaching critical mass.

The move is likely to give a new lease of life to the case against Mr Sharon, who is accused of being responsible for the massacre of more than 800 Palestinians in Lebanon in 1982 while he was Israel's minister of defence, because, it is claimed, he allowed militia forces allied to Israel to run amok in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Survivors of the atrocities began legal proceedings against him in Belgium and were furious when the case was dismissed by three judges in Brussels in June.

The Sharon case is still under appeal and remains live, so any change in the law could see it reinstated.

The very fact that Belgian judges are even considering a case against Mr Sharon has soured relations with Israel and many Belgian politicians were relieved when the matter appeared to be at an end. They will not welcome new proceedings.

No more Mr Nice Guy? However, Mr Sharon's accusers face another, probably insurmountable hurdle, which is likely to mean that even a trial in absentia will never get off the ground.

Last February the international court of justice ruled that past and present government leaders could not be tried for war crimes by a foreign state, a ruling that is likely to spare Israel's blushes.

The Belgians are keen to steer clear of cases which damage their diplomatic ties with other countries.

Although the latest changes will allow trials in absentia and authorise the Belgian courts to try cases which fall outside the jurisdiction of the recently created international criminal court, there will be a special clause designed to deter "legal tourists".

A filtering mechanism will be created to weed out cases which are purely political or propagandist in nature.

"We will put up a filter for those cases which are not linked to Belgium... to allow for a speedier dismissal of purely political complaints which don't have anything to do with genocide or war crimes and which are often lodged as propaganda," said Vincent Van Quickenborne, a Liberal senator.

A public prosecutor will vet such cases first and decide whether or not they are genuine, although dismissals at such an early stage could be appealed.