Meanwhile, we have also been informed that the Court of Cassation hearing
concerning our case, scheduled previously for 27 November, has been postponed. No date has been fixed yet, a further sign that the Court is relying on the Belgian legislature to clarify the contentious point concerning the required presence of the accused on Belgian soil. We have argued that such a condition defeats both the letter and the purpose of Belgium's universal jurisdiction law--indeed the preparatory documents of the unanimous 1993/1999 Law specifically state that the accused need NOT be on Belgian soil. As such, the Court of Appeals' 26 June ruling in the case against Sharon and others betrayed the will of the Belgian legislature, ignored the existing body of international criminal law currently employed for prosecuting a wide range of transborder crimes, undermined the complementarity and assistance sought by the International Criminal Court in the Rome Treaty that established it, and last, but certainly not least, reinforced the prevailing immunity for perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
Last Wednesday's decision clearly indicates the fundamental unwillingness of the Supreme Court to accept the reasoning of the Appeals Court, and further strengthens the Sabra and Shatila victims' chances of obtaining a reversal of the decision in their case. It also highlights the necessity for the Belgian legislature to defend Belgium's universal jurisdiction law.
concerning our case, scheduled previously for 27 November, has been postponed. No date has been fixed yet, a further sign that the Court is relying on the Belgian legislature to clarify the contentious point concerning the required presence of the accused on Belgian soil. We have argued that such a condition defeats both the letter and the purpose of Belgium's universal jurisdiction law--indeed the preparatory documents of the unanimous 1993/1999 Law specifically state that the accused need NOT be on Belgian soil. As such, the Court of Appeals' 26 June ruling in the case against Sharon and others betrayed the will of the Belgian legislature, ignored the existing body of international criminal law currently employed for prosecuting a wide range of transborder crimes, undermined the complementarity and assistance sought by the International Criminal Court in the Rome Treaty that established it, and last, but certainly not least, reinforced the prevailing immunity for perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
Last Wednesday's decision clearly indicates the fundamental unwillingness of the Supreme Court to accept the reasoning of the Appeals Court, and further strengthens the Sabra and Shatila victims' chances of obtaining a reversal of the decision in their case. It also highlights the necessity for the Belgian legislature to defend Belgium's universal jurisdiction law.