Many in the world were taken by surprise when a Belgium Court of Appeal declared the trial of Sharon for his Sabra and Shattila massacre ‘ inadmissible’’. Observers and analysts of deep knowledge about the know-how of policy making in today’s paralyzed one-poled world, were less shocked. They cited scores of examples from recent history regarding the injustice inflicted upon the oppressed, where the last of which was the cancellation of a UN fact finding mission into the Israeli crimes in the Palestinian steadfast Camp of Jenin, the living symbol for heroic resistance against occupiers.

This, however, didn’t derail the International Amnesty, from issuing an objective report to this effect. On June 26, 2002, the Amnesty issued a press release voicing “Dismay at Sharon case decision”. "This restrictive interpretation of Belgian national law is inconsistent with international law," said Amnesty International. The organization believes that the Belgian Parliament, in enacting the 1993 law providing for universal jurisdiction over war crimes, as well as in its 1999 amendment to that law extending its scope to crimes against humanity and genocide, intended to provide Belgian courts with the full extent of universal jurisdiction over these crimes permitted under international law.

In fact, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 authorize Belgium to open an investigation for grave breaches of humanitarian law regardless of the location of the suspect and to seek the extradition of any person suspected of grave breaches with a  view to exercising universal jurisdiction even if that person has never been in that country. The next step in this case is an appeal to the Court of Cassation. If this unfortunate decision is upheld on appeal, Amnesty International will seek an amendment of the Belgian law to ensure that Belgium can continue to act on behalf of the international community in investigating and prosecuting the worst possible crimes in the world when states where the crime occurred have failed to fulfil their responsibilities under international law.

"The massacres of Sabra and Shatila refugee camps were war crimes and need to be fully and impartially investigated," said Amnesty International. "International law to combat impunity must not be undermined, especially as the International Criminal Court will enter into force on 1 July."; which indeed went into force regardless of others pressure as to derail international justice! As the results of an Amnesty International study of national law in more than 125 countries published in September 2001 demonstrate, international law permits any state to exercise universal jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture and, indeed, even ordinary crimes, and all but a handful of the national laws providing for universal jurisdiction do not contain any requirement that the suspects be present in the country in order for the police, prosecutors or investigating judges to open a criminal investigation.

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Geneva Convention I, Art. 49; Geneva Convention II, Art. 50; Geneva Convention III, Art. 129; Geneva Convention IV, Art. 146) permit any state party to open an investigation of grave breaches and to request the extradition of suspects without any requirement that the suspects have ever  entered territory subject to that state's jurisdiction, as long as they have sufficient information concerning the possible criminal responsibility of the suspect (prima facie evidence): "The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation

necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article 50 (Convention I): Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the  provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a ' prima facie' case."

The jungle law is never appropriate to be the dominant in today’s so called global village. Laws, since time immemorial, were enshrined as to protect the rights of the aggressed upon. The strong should never be in any way allowed to impose their will and tailored laws upon even the innocent civilians of our martyrs. It is either a safe world with equality and justice for all or the worst is to come!

By

Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

Abdo88@ureach.com