The International Court of Justice in The Hague has decided that Belgium acted illegally in issuing and circulating an arrest warrant for Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, because at the time of issuance, he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Congo.
In a thirteen to four Decision, the Court ruled:
“that the issue against Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi of the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000, and its international circulature, constituted violations of a legal obligation of the Kingdom of Belgium
In a thirteen to four Decision, the Court ruled:
“that the issue against Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi of the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000, and its international circulature, constituted violations of a legal obligation of the Kingdom of Belgium
towards the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in that they failed to respect the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability which the incunbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo enjoyed under international law.”
Belgium must therefore cancel the arrest warrant and notify all authorities to which it was sent.
The World Court’s rationale is that “… the functions of a Minister for Foreign Affairs are such that, throughout the duration of his or her office he or she when abroad enjoys full
Belgium must therefore cancel the arrest warrant and notify all authorities to which it was sent.
The World Court’s rationale is that “… the functions of a Minister for Foreign Affairs are such that, throughout the duration of his or her office he or she when abroad enjoys full
immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolabiity. That immunity and that inviolability protect the individual concerned against any act of authority of another State which would hinder him or her in the performance of his or her duties.”
The Court stressed, however, that immunity does not mean impunity and that criminal acts commited by anyone, regardless of his or her position, should be prosecuted.
“…While jurisdictional immunity is procedural in nature, criminal responsibility is a question of substantive law.
The Court stressed, however, that immunity does not mean impunity and that criminal acts commited by anyone, regardless of his or her position, should be prosecuted.
“…While jurisdictional immunity is procedural in nature, criminal responsibility is a question of substantive law.