Universal Jurisdiction in Practice: Efforts to Hold Donald Rumsfeld and Other High-level United States Officials Accountable for Torture

Abstract

This article examines the efforts to hold high-level US officials accountable for their alleged role in the torture and other serious abuse of detainees under US control through the principle of universal jurisdiction. First, it sets out what is known about United States detention and interrogation practices during the so-called 'war on terror', and what efforts, if any, have been undertaken in the United States to hold individuals accountable for their role in the torture and serious abuse of detainees. After a preliminary comment on the definition of torture, it examines the factual and legal underpinnings, and adjudicative results of the cases filed in this regard in Germany and France, and the recent efforts undertaken in Spain. It concludes by enquiring about the role and future of universal jurisdiction, particularly in cases of powerful defendants, in closing the impunity gap for serious violations of international law. After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the [Bush] administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account. ç Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba (US-Ret.), led the US Army's official investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. 1

Nuevas y viejas tendencias en el diseño del proceso monitorio: propuestas desde la experiencia comparada para un procedimiento monitorio en Argentina

“…Esta situación generó un efecto dominó en otras naciones europeas; mientras en Bélgica se instauraba un proceso contra un general estadounidense por crímenes de guerra en Iraq, en Alemania ocurría lo propio y se instauraba un procedimiento contra militares estadounidenses por tortura durante esa misma guerra 79 . Finalmente, la Corte Suprema de Bélgica redujo los alcances de la jurisdicción universal en una sentencia de 2003 en la que indicó:…”

Iraq and the case for Australian war crimes trials

“…For example, Pinochet was charged in 1998 in a Spanish case involving victims of his dictatorship under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction recognises that some crimes are so serious that they affect the entire international community, and that the perpetrators of such crimes can be prosecuted in countries other than where the crimes were committed [31]. The case established the key international legal principle, now known as the Pinochet Principle, that heads of state could not claim immunity in the face of international charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes [38].…”

“…The case established the key international legal principle, now known as the Pinochet Principle, that heads of state could not claim immunity in the face of international charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes [38]. Subsequent international charges were pursued against former heads of state Milosevic and Charles Taylor of Liberia [31].…”

“…In 2007 under France's universal jurisdiction law, a similar coalition of human rights groups filed a complaint against Rumsfeld for torture and other serious war crimes. A complaint was filed in March 2009 under Spain's universal jurisdiction law against six senior Bush administration lawyers, including Gonzales, for their role in allegedly legitimatising the torture program [31].…”

“…Persons implicated in lesser scale massacres in the Balkans have been prosecuted for war crimes [37]. While there have been at least four attempts to indict former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and or other top US officials in Germany, France, and Spain [31] and moves (ultimately unsuccessful) to hold Bush administration officials responsible for policies of systematic torture, [1,38] no legal moves have been made against Australian officials.…”