Non corrigé Traduction
Uncorrected Translation
CR 2012/2 (traduction)
CR 2012/2 (translation)
lundi 12 mars 2012 à 10 h 20
Monday 12 March 2012 at 10.20 a.m. - 2 -
8 The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is open.
The Court meets today, pursuant to Article43 et seq . of its Statute, to hear the oral
arguments of the Parties in the case concerning Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute
or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal).
Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of either of the Parties,
each of them availed itself of its right under Artic le31, paragraph3, of the Statute to choose a
judge ad hoc. Mr.SergeSur, chosen by Senegal, a nd Mr.PhilippeKirsch, chosen by Belgium,
were both duly installed on 6 April 2009 as judges ad hoc in the case at the opening of the hearings
on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Belgium.
*
I shall now recall the principal steps of the procedure in this case.
On 19February2009, the Kingdom of Belgium filed in the Registry of the Court an
Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Senegal in respect of a dispute
concerning “Senegal’s compliance with its obligat ion to prosecute Mr.HissèneHabré, former
President of the Republic of Chad, or to extradite him to Belgium for the purposes of criminal
proceedings”. Belgium bases its claims on th e United Nations Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, as well as on
the conventional and customary international law relating to international crimes.
Belgium invokes, as bases for the jurisdiction of the Court, the declarations made under
Article36, paragraph2, of the Statute, by Belgium on 17June1958 and by Senegal on
2 December 1985, and Article 30 of the Convention against Torture.
In its Application, Belgium contends that Se negal, where Mr. Habré has been living in exile
since 1990, has taken no action on its repeated re quests that the former President of Chad be
prosecuted in Senegal, failing his extradition to Belgium, for acts characterized as including crimes
of torture and crimes against humanity. Belgium explains that, following a complaint filed on
25January2000 by seven individuals and a non-g overnmental organization, the Association of
Victims of Political Repression and Crime, Mr.Habré was indicted by the senior investigating - 3 -
9 judge of the Dakar Tribunal régional hors classe , on 3February2000, for complicity in “crimes
against humanity, acts of torture and barbarity” and placed under house arrest. Belgium adds that
this indictment was dismissed by the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal on
4 July 2000 on the grounds that Senegalese law did not allow for the prosecution of crimes against
humanity and that the Senegalese courts could not exercise jurisdiction in respect of acts of torture
and barbarity committed by an alien outside Senegalese territory.
Belgium also states that, “[ b]etween 30November2000 and 11December2001, a Belgian
national of Chadian origin and Chadian nationals” f iled similar complaints in the Belgian courts.
Belgium notes that, since the end of 2001, its competent legal authorities have requested numerous
investigative measures of Senegal, and in September2005 issued an international arrest warrant
against Mr. Habré on which the Senegalese courts did not see fit to take action. At the end of 2005,
according to Belgium, Senegal passed the case on to the African Union. Belgium adds that, in
February 2007, Senegal decided to amend its Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure so as to
include “the offences of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity”; however, it points
out that the Respondent has cited financial diffi culties preventing it from bringing Mr.Habré to
trial.
Belgcunttnadts
“Senegal’s failure to prosecute Mr. H[issène] Habré, if he is not extradited to Belgium
to answer for the acts of torture that are alleged against him, violates the Convention
against Torture of 1984, in particular Article 5, paragraph 2, Article 7, paragraph 1,
Article 8, paragraph 2, and Article 9, paragraph 1”.
It adds that
“Senegal’s failure to prosecute Mr. H[issène] Habré, or to extradite him to Belgium to
answer for the crimes against humanity whic h are alleged against him, violates the
general obligation to punish crimes under in ternational humanitarian law which is to
be found in numerous texts of secondary law . . . and treaty law”.
On 19 February 2009, after filing its Appli cation, Belgium also submitted a Request for the
indication of provisional measures on the basis of Article41 of the Statute of the Court and
Articles 73 to 75 of the Rules of Court. By an Order of 28 May 2009, the Court, having heard the
10 Parties, found that “the circumstances, as they [t hen] present[ed] themselves to the Court, [were] - 4 -
not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article41 of the Statute to indicate
provisional measures”.
By an Order of 9July2009, the Court fixed 9July2010 and 11July2011, respectively, as
the time-limits for the filing of the Memorial of Belgium and the Counter-Memorial of Senegal.
The Memorial of Belgium was duly filed within the time-limit so prescribed.
By an Order of 11 July 2011, the President of the Court, at the request of Senegal, extended
to 29August2011 the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial. That pleading was duly
filed within the time-limit thus extended.
At a meeting held by the President of the Court with the Agents of the Parties on
10October2011, the Parties indicated that they did not consider a second round of written
pleadings to be necessary and that they wished the Court to fix the date of the opening of the
hearings as soon as possible. The Court consider ed that it was sufficiently informed of the
arguments on the issues of fact and law on which the Parties relied and that the submission of
further pleadings did not appear necessary. The case thus became ready for hearing.
*
Pursuant to Article53, paragraph2, of th e Rules of Court, the Court decided, after
ascertaining the views of the Parties, that copies of the pleadings and annexed documents would be
made accessible to the public on the opening of the oral proceedings. Further, in accordance with
the Court’s practice, the pleadings without their annexes will be put on the Court’s website from
today.
*
I note the presence at the hearing of the Agen ts, counsel and Advocates of the two Parties.
In accordance with the arrangements regarding the organization of the procedure which have been
decided by the Court, the hearings will comprise a first and a second round of oral argument.
* - 5 -
11 In this first sitting of the first round of orargument, Belgium may, if so required, avail
itself of a short extension of time beyond 1 p.m., in view of the time taken up by the earlier public
sitting today. The first round of oral argumen t will close on Friday 16March2012. The second
round of oral argument will begin on Monday 19March2012 and will close on Wednesday
21 March 2012.
*
The Kingdom of Belgium, which is the Applicant in the case, will be heard first. I shall now
give the floor to Mr. Paul Rietjens, Agent of the Kingdom of Belgium. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. RIETJENS:
1. INTRODUCTION
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a great honour to appear before you again, on
behalf of the Kingdom of Belgium. As I indicated at the hearings on the request for the indication
of provisional measures, Belgium has the great est respect for the Court and the system of
international justice in which it exercises its functions.
2. Allow me at the outset to recall that Be lgium maintains good relations with the Republic
of Senegal. The institution of these proceedings does not in any way cons titute an unfriendly act
and should not be perceived as casting doubt on th e quality of our bilateral relations. Our two
countries have long been good partners, maintaining relations of friendship and co-operation. The
friendly links between us do not, however, rule out the possibility of differences. But they do
enable us to discuss these differences openly so as to find solutions in line with international law.
3. It is against this background, therefore, th at Belgium appears before you today. We have
no choice but to return to the Court to ensure co mpliance with the obligation to prosecute, if not
extradite, and thus to combat impunity for the most serious crimes of international law.
12 4. It is also on behalf of the victims of tese crimes, some of whom are Belgian nationals,
that Belgium has decided to bring this case before your Court. These victims deserve to see the - 6 -
person they accuse of these crimes brought to justi ce, even after the lapse of so much time, or
perhaps precisely on that account.
5. I need not dwell at length on the backgr ound to this case. Hissène Habré led Chad for
eight years, between 1982 and 1990. During that peri od, tens of thousands of people were arrested
by the government forces, killed or incarcerated as political prisoners. Many of them were
tortured; grotesquely tortured. Mr.President, Members of the Court, I will spare you the
harrowing details of those tortures. The final report of the National Commission of Enquiry on the
crimes and misappropriations committed by ex-PresidenH t abré, his accomplices and/or
accessories, set up in the early 1990s in Chad, which refers to more than 40,000victims 1, speaks
for itself.
6. In December 1990, Hissène Habré was overthr own by his opponent, Mr. Idriss Déby Itno,
and sought refuge in Senegal wher e he has resided ever since. In January 2000, victims of the
atrocities committed in Chad unde r the HissèneHabré régime in stituted criminal proceedings
against him in Senegal. Other victims filed complaints in Belgium between November2000 and
December 2001. In a few moments the Co-Agent will explain to the Court how these proceedings
unfolded. To summarize, more than 12 years ha ve elapsed between January 2000 and the opening
of these hearings, and we are still no closer to th e organization of proceedings in Senegal against
the person accused of bearing responsibility for th ese crimes committed on such a massive scale.
Indeed, despite the promises made by Senegal to try Hissène Habré, not the slightest progress has
been made in organizing his trial in Senegal, not withstanding the many efforts made by Belgium,
the African Union, the European Union and others to assist and support Senegal in that endeavour.
7. Mr. President, the case that the Court has to decide is not, however, as we so often hear,
the “Hissène Habré case”. This Court is not requi red to adjudicate on the events that took place in
13 Chad between June1982 and December1990. The importance of this case goes far beyond the
particular circumstances linked to the criminal proceedings against HissèneHabré. This case,
between Belgium and Senegal, raises fundamental issues with regard to the solemn obligations
assumed by the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Torture and in the context
1
Les crimes et détournements commis par l’ex-Président Habré, ses co-auteurs et com, [The crimes and
misappropriations committed by ex-President Habré, his complices and/or accessories], Report of the National
Commission of Enquiry of the Chadian Ministry of Justice, L’Harmattan, Paris, 1993, p. 97. - 7 -
of general international law. This case concerns the fight against impunity for “the most serious
2
crimes of concern to the international community as a whole” . This fight cannot be encapsulated
in a slogan, but requires concrete action under international law. It is not enough for States to ratify
the Convention against Torture and make high-so unding speeches about their determination to
meet their obligations under the law. What counts, in the fight against impunity, is action. Central
to such action is the effective and efficient im plementation of the obligation to prosecute the
perpetrators of the most serious crimes.
8. Following your Order of 28May2009 on the Belgian request for the indication of
provisional measures, we entertained great hope, indeed , we expected the two Parties to be able to
resolve their dispute concerning the obligation to pr osecute if not to extradite HissèneHabré. In
this connection, Belgium attached great importance to the solemn declarations made by the Agent
of Senegal, AmbassadorTidianeThiam, on whic h the Order is based. With the generous and
highly appreciated assistance of the African Union, the European Commission and a series of third
States we thought that it would have been possibl e rapidly to make the n ecessary arrangements for
the initiation of criminal proceedings and the orga nization of HissèneHabré’s trial in Senegal.
Belgium has in fact always been convinced that bringing HissèneHabré before the Senegalese
courts was the most appropriate solution. That is, moreover, the solution expressly envisaged in
the Convention against Torture.
9. It is true that the decision taken in November2010 by the Court of Justice of the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) added a layer of complexity to the case,
but this does not constitute an insuperable obstacl e to its conclusion. The African Union made
14 every effort to work out an accepta ble solution in the light of both that decision and the obligation
to prosecute, failing extradition. Nevertheless, in May2011, discussions with the African Union
aimed in the direction of that solution, despite having apparently started on the right track, were
postponed sine die at the request of Senegal.
10. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I wish here to pay a particular tribute to the role of
the African Union. The African States, in the context of the African Union, are firmly attached to
2
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, preamble. - 8 -
the rule of law and to the principle that there can be no impunity for torture, crimes against
humanity and other serious crimes under international law. In this spirit, the institutions of the
African Union have played a highly positive role in seeking to ensure that the trial of
HissèneHabré is organized within a reasonable pe riod of time. Regrettably, however, all these
efforts have proved fruitless.
11. Months later, years later, as we find ourselves before your Court today, we regret to say
that the Senegalese authorities have failed to take the necessary measures to bring Hissène Habré to
justice. The alternative route of extradition to Belgium has not proved any more fruitful. For
reasons that remain inexplicable, the Senegalese authorities have repeatedly failed to move forward
on Belgium’s numerous extradition requests. No progress has been made since the day you issued
your order on provisional measures, nearly thr ee years ago. To quote a well-known saying:
“Justice delayed is justice denied”.
12. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the crimes at issue were committed 20 or 30 years
ago. For decades, numerous victims of these crim es have been waiting to be finally awarded the
justice that is due to them. Since January2000, they have sought untiringly to have proceedings
instituted with a view to enforcing their right to justice, with no concrete result. But these victims
are growing old, and the inexorable passage of time has already seen many of them pass away. The
survivors, for their part, despair of ever being able to reach closure on these heinous crimes. The
present proceedings offer the hope of fulfilment, in the near future, of the victims’ desire for
justice. It is therefore our fervent wish that there will be no further delay in the prosecution of
Hissène Habré in Senegal or his extradition to Belgium.
15 13. At this time of our appearance before you, it is clear that Senegal has failed and is still
failing to comply with its international obligati ons under the Convention against Torture and other
relevant rules of international law. The Conve ntion against Torture requires any State Party in
whose territory a person alleged to have committed acts of torture is present to take certain specific
measures against him and, in particular, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the
purpose of prosecution, unless it extradites that person to the State which so requests. The same is
true of other rules of international law concer ning the fight against impunity. Despite its
commitments, however, Senegal has not taken the appropriate measures. Consequently, according - 9 -
to Belgium, Senegal is in violation of its oblig ations and must assume international responsibility
therefor. Belgium therefore asks the Court to adju dge that Senegal, by failing to comply with its
international obligations, has incurred international responsibility and must immediately put an end
to its internationally wrongful acts, either by submitting the HissèneHabré case file to its
competent authorities for prosecution, or by extraditing HissèneHabré without further delay to
Belgium which, on several occasions and in confor mity with Senegalese law, has requested such
extradition from the Senegalese authorities. Only in this way can we preserve the principle that
there can be no impunity for the most serious crim es which affect the international community as a
whole.
14. Mr.President, Members of the Court, this is an important case. It is important to the
victims and their close relatives. It is important to the international community, which increasingly
and with growing determination emphasizes the need to combat impunity, and which is following
the present case closely. And finally this case is pa rticularly important to Belgium since, at the
request of certain victims, some of whom are Belgian nationals, and their families, the Belgian
courts have instituted proceedings against Hissène Habré; proceedings that culminated in 2005 ⎯
that is to say, nearly seven years ago already ⎯ in a preliminary request for his extradition. The
Belgian courts have also offered international judicial co-operation to Senegal as a way of
facilitating the conduct of criminal proceedings in Senegal if the latter chooses that option to fulfil
its international obligations. In short, the dispute between Be lgium and Senegal is of major
16 significance, as it relates to the respective obligations of these States in the context of the fight
against impunity for perpetrators of crimes under in ternational law (crimes of torture, crimes of
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes); this concern is shared by the whole of the
international community.
15. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in this first round, our pleadings will be structured
as follows.
16. First, we shall describe the facts most re levant to this case, which include the judicial
proceedings initiated in Belgium and in Senegal, as well as before international bodies and, in
particular, before the Committe e against Torture which, as you know, has found that Senegal - 10 -
violated its obligations under the Convention agai nst Torture. The Co-Agent, Mr.GérardDive,
and Professor Eric David, will each in turn present this first part of our pleadings.
17. Sir Michael Wood will then deal with the jurisdiction of the Court u
nder Article 30 of the
Convention against Torture and the admissibility of Belgium’s Application.
18. Lastly, in today’s final address, ProfessorEricDavid will examine the issue of the
Court’s jurisdiction on the basis of the declarations made by each of the Parties under Article36,
paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.
19. Tomorrow morning, we shall resume our presentation. Sir Michael Wood will examine
matters relating to the Convention against Torture. He will deal with the specific obligations owed
to Belgium under the Convention, obligations on wh ich, in our view, Senegal has taken no action,
or at least no timely or satisfactory action.
20. Professor Eric David will then deal with the violation by Senegal of the obligations owed
to Belgium under general international law.
21. Subsequently, Mr.Daniel Müller will explain that the various justifications put forward
by Senegal in its Counter-Memorial, including fi nancial and other difficulties and the affirmation
of its desire to comply with its obligations, ar e not such as to wipe out Senegal’s international
responsibility.
22. Finally, to conclude this first round of Belgium’s pleadings, I shall briefly explain, from
the standpoint of international responsibility, the consequences that must be drawn by Senegal by
17 reason of its violation of its international obliga tions. I shall end with a few words on Belgium’s
submissions and the remedies requested from the Court.
23. I thank the Court for its kind attention and would ask you, Mr.President, to be good
enough to give the floor to our Co-Agent, Mr. Gérard Dive.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Rietjens. I now give the floor to Mr.Gérard Dive,
Co-Agent of Belgium. You have the floor, Sir. - 11 -
DMIr.E:
2. THE FACTS : PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED IN S ENEGAL
AND IN BELGIUM
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I have the honour to continue the summary of the
facts in the present case. As th e Agent has already stated, this presentation will examine the facts
concerning the proceedings instituted against Hissène Habré in both Senegal and Belgium,
including the requests made by Belgium to the Senegalese authorities for the extradition of
Mr. Habré.
2. This presentation is not intended to go in to details systematically where the Court is
already aware of them 3. However, as these sometimes comple x facts are fundamentally important
in the present case, Belgium has drawn up a list se tting out the most relevant in chronological
order, so that it is easier to follow their developmen t. You will find this list at tab 1 in the judges’
folders. For now, therefore, I will confine myself to recalling the most important facts.
3. Mr. President, my presentation will be divided into two sections. The first will focus on
the complaints filed in Senegal against Hissèn e Habré and the proceedings instituted by the
Senegalese authorities on that basis (I.). The second section will look at the complaints filed in
Belgium against Mr. Habré and the action taken by the Belgian authorities as a result. I will be
particularly concentrating on the key events in the development of the dispute between Belgium
and Senegal, which lie at the heart of the present case (II.).
18 4. Before I begin, however, and for the sake of clarity, I would like to give the Court a brief
summary of what the concepts of “investig ating judge” and complaint with “civil-party
application” cover in Belgian law and also Senegalese law. In th e Belgian legal system, which is a
civil law system by tradition, the investigating judg e is a magistrate who is specially appointed to
conduct an “investigation”. The investigation consists of all the investigative measures carried out
in order to identify the perpetrators of crimes or other offences, collect evidence and take steps to
bring the case before the courts, if appropriate. A civil-party application is when a person who
3Application instituting Proceedings by the Kingdoof Belgium against the Republic of Senegal,
16February2009, Memorial of Belgiu(“MB”), Vol. II, Ann.C.7; MB of 1 July 2010; letters from the Agent of
Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latdevelopments, dated 16 July 2009, 23 November 2010,
21 March 2011, 29 June 2011, 18 July 2011, 8 September 2011 and 23 January 2012. - 12 -
claims to have been injured as a result of a cr ime or other offence files a complaint with an
investigating judge, resulting in the initiation of criminal proceedings 4. This procedure is familiar
in many other countries with a Romano-Germanic legal system. It enables the victim to participate
in the proceedings by being given a hearing a nd to seek damages for th e injury caused by the
offence concerned.
I. Complaints filed against Hissène Habré before the Senegalese authorities
5. Mr. President, I would thus like to begin my summary with the complaints filed against
Hissène Habré in Senegal by persons who consider themselves to be victims of crimes committed
or ordered by Mr.Habré while he was President of Chad. I will present the facts relating to the
complaint filed in 2000 (A.), followed by those concerning the second complaint, in 2008 (B.).
A. Complaint filed in 2000
6. On 25January2000, more than 12year s ago, the first complaint with civil-party
application was filed in Senegal against Hissène Ha bré by eight complainants. They considered
themselves to be victims of crimes against humanity, crimes of torture, “acts of barbarity” and
forced disappearances. Further to that complain t, on 3February2000 an investigating judge in
Dakar indicted Mr.Habré for complicity in “crimes against humanity, acts of torture and
5
barbarity”. The investigating judge released him pending trial and placed him under house arrest .
On 18 February 2000, Mr. Habré reacted to the indictment by filing an application for annulment of
the proceedings against him on the ground that the Senegalese courts did not have jurisdiction, in
19
6
view of the lack of legal justification and expiry of the time-limit for prosecution .
7. On 4 July 2000 , the Dakar Court of Appeal dismissed the indictment against Mr. Habré 8
on the ground that the Senegalese courts did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the facts of the
4
Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 63.
5MB, Vol. II, Ann. D.2. (CMS, p. 7, para. 16: “releasing him pending trial, under court supervision”).
6Judgment No.135 of 4 July 2000 of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal, MB, Vol. II,
Ann. D.3., corrected.
7The date of 4 July 2001 given in the Counter-Memorial of Senegal (“CMS”) (p.7, para.18) appears to be a
clerical error.
8Judgment No.135 of 4 July 2000 of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal, MB, Vol.II,
Ann. D.3., corrected. - 13 -
9
case . Regarding crimes of torture, the Court also found that the Senegalese legislature had failed
to comply with Article 5 of the United Nati ons Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984, which I will refer to from
now on as the Convention against Torture. Article5 requires the States Parties to take the
measures necessary to establish the jurisdiction of their courts over the offences referred to in
Article 4 of the Convention.
8. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was confirmed by the Senegalese Court of Cassation
on 20 March 2001 10. That decision, which was not open to appeal, ended the victims’ hopes ⎯ at
that time ⎯ of seeing Hissène Habré brought to trial in Senegal.
B. Complaint filed in 2008
9. I will turn now to the second complaint f iled in Senegal. As a result of legislative
amendments made in 2007 and constitutional amendments adopted in 2008, finally introducing into
Senegalese law the provisions necessary to establis h the jurisdiction of the Senegalese courts,
particularly for acts of torture ⎯ Professor Eric David will be coming back to these
amendments ⎯ a fresh complaint for crimes against humanity and acts of torture was filed by
11
fourteen persons on 16 September 2008 in Dakar .
10. To date, as far as we know, no investiga tive proceedings have been instituted against
20
Mr. Habré either on the basis of this new complain t, or by the prosecuting authorities of their own
motion, in flagrant breach of Senegal’s international obligations.
11. As we have seen, therefore, the compla int of 2000 could not result in prosecution
because the Senegalese courts lacked jurisdiction, and the complaint of 2008 has not, as far as we
know, led to any judicial action.
9Judgment No.135 of 4 July 2000 of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal, MB, Vol.II,
Ann. D.3., corrected.
10The date of 20 November 2001 given in the CMS (p.7, pa ra.19) appears to be a cl erical error; Judgment
No.14 of the Senegalese Court of Cassation,première chambre statuant en matière pénale , of 20 March 2001, MB,
Vol. II, Ann. D.4.
11Complaint filed with the Public Prosecutor at the kar Court of Appeal, 16September 2008, MB, Vol.II,
Ann. D.5. - 14 -
II. Complaints filed against Hissène Habré in Belgium
12. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I now come to the second section of my
presentation, which covers the judicial proceedi ngs instituted against Hissène Habré in Belgium,
and the extradition requests made to Senegal. The relevant facts will be presented in chronological
order and will cover two periods. First, the f acts which occurred from the time when the first
complaint was filed in Belgium in 2000 up to the institution by Belgium of the present proceedings
before the Court in 2009 (A.). Second, the f acts which have occurred from that date to the
present (B.).
D. From 2000 to February 2009
13. Mr. President, the facts relating to proceed ings which occurred between the filing of the
first complaint in Belgium in 2000 and Belgium’s Application instituting proceedings before this
Court in 2009 revolve around a pivotal moment. This was on 19 September 2005, when a Belgian
investigating judge issued an international arrest warrant against Hissène Habré, followed by a first
extradition request. I will therefore begin by focusing on the facts which occurred between 2000
and that pivotal date (i). I will then describe the facts which occurred between the pivotal date in
2005 and the date when the present proceedings were brought before the Court (ii).
21 (i) The facts which occurred between 30 November 2000 and 19 September 2005
14. On 30 November 2000, a Belgian national of Chadian origin filed a complaint with
civil-party application with a Belgian investig ating judge against Hissène Habré for, among other
things, serious violations of international human itarian law, crimes of torture and crimes of
genocide.
15. Between 30 November 2000 and 11 December 2001, another 20 persons filed complaints
with civil-party applications against Mr. Habré before the Belgian courts for the same type of acts.
Those complaints were joined with the first. The nationalities of the 21complainants when they
filed their successive complaints were as follows: one Belgian of Chadian origin, two persons with
dual Belgian-Chadian nationality and eighteen Chad ians. The three Belgian or Belgian-Chadian - 15 -
complainants had acquired Belgian nationality well before the date on which their complaints were
12
filed with the Belgian courts .
16. Contrary to Senegal’s assertions 13, these are not the same complainants as those who
filed complaints in 2000 before the Senegalese c ourts and who, disappointed with the judgment of
the Senegalese Court of Cassation confirming th e invalidation of the proceedings against
Mr. Habré, then allegedly turned to the Belgian courts. A careful reading of the 2001 judgment of
14
the Senegalese Court of Cassation and of the Be lgian arrest warrant shows this to be the case .
The Co-Agent of Senegal also admitted that this was so in the pleadings concerning Belgium’s
request for the indication of provisional measures 15.
22 17. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the fact s set out in detail in the international arrest
warrant are extremely serious 16. I will cite just three of those it describes, since it is important to
understand what is really at stake in the present case when we talk about combating impunity.
Mr. Aganaye was arrested in May 1989 by soldiers of Mr. Habré’s régime; he was transferred to
the “piscine”, an underground prison, where he was subjected to a brutal and violent interrogation
for over three hours. He would be released in December 1989 17. Mr. Garkete Baïnde saw all the
members of his family die or disappear. On 2 October 1984, his paternal uncle was “tortured first
in front of his family by Habré’s army rabble and then in the yard of the Telecommunications
School in Sarh (. . .) where they finished him o ff. The perpetrators kept his body until it had fully
18
decomposed” . In 1985 his cousin was “very seriously injured by Habré’s militia. They
12
International arrest warrant in absentia, sheet 14, para. 2.3.2.2, MB, Vol. II, Ann. C.1.
13
CMS, 23 August 2011, p. 8, para. 20.
14The seven natural persons who filed complaints in Senegal were called Suleymane Guengueng,
Zakaria Fadoul Khidir, Issac Haroun Abdallah, Younous Mahadjir, Samuel Togoto Lamaye, Ramadane Souleymane and
ValentinNeatobet Bidi (Judgment No.14 of 20 Ma rch 2001 of the Senegalese Court of Cassation, première chambre
statuant en matière pénale, MB, Vol. II, Ann. D.4). The 21 persons who filed complaints in Belgium were: A. Aganaye,
R. Dralta, N’Garkete Baïnde Djimandjoumadji, Hadj e Kadjidja Daka, Ismael Hachim, KoumandjeGabin,
SabadetTotodet, Aiba Adam Harifa , Aldoumngar Mabaije Boukar, Mahamat Abakar Bourdjo, Clement Abaifouta,
Mariam Abderaman, Adimatcho Djamal, Bichara Djibrine, Bechir Bechara Dagachene, Ibrahim Kossi,
SouleymaneAbdoulaye Tahir, Haoua Brahim, Masrangar Rimram, Mahamat N our Dadji and BassouZenaba Ngolo
(international arrest warrant in absentia, MB, Vol. I, Ann. C.1).
15CR 2009/9, 6 April 2009, p. 24, paras 9-10 (Kandji).
16International arrest warrant in absentia, sheet 14, para.1.3, MB, Ann.C.1, Application instituting proceedings
by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Republic of Senegal, 16 February 2009, Ann. 3, p. 36-48, MB, Vol. II, Ann. C.7.
17Ibid., p. 38, para. 1.3.1.
18
Ibid., p. 40, para. 1.3.3. - 16 -
19
shamelessly left him to carry his own guts to a small village, where he passed away” . Mr. Gabin
was arrested on 12 July 1987. “He alleges that he was tortured by the DSD many times and was
subjected to the “Arbatachar” method of torture and torture by sticks and that he had match burns
20
all over his body” .
18. Mr. President, at the time when the co mplaints were filed, the Belgian courts’
jurisdiction over them was based on the Law on the punishment of serious violations of
international humanitarian law of 1993/1999 2. This law referred to cr imes of international law
over which it gave the Belgian c ourts jurisdiction, irrespective of where the acts were perpetrated
and the nationality of the perpetrator or the vi ctims. That law was amended by the law of
5 August 2003 22. Under Article 29 of that law, the Belg ian courts continue to have jurisdiction
23
over complaints having a particular connection with Belgium, especially where the case in question
had been the subject of an investigation on the date when the law came into force and provided that
at least one complainant had Belgian nationality. It is on that basis that Belgium wishes to exercise
its jurisdiction to try Hissène Habré.
19. As a result of the filing of those complaints, numerous investigative measures were
carried out both in Belgium and in other count ries. These included a letter rogatory of
September 2001 addressed to the Senegalese authorities 23, seeking to obtain a copy of the records
from the unsuccessful proceedings brought against Mr. Habré the previous year in Senegal. The
Senegalese authorities forwarded the documents requested to the Belgian authorities in
24
November 2001 .
20. A further international letter rogatory was addressed to Chad. It sought, inter alia, to
obtain a hearing of presumed victims and witnesses and the forwarding of documents from the
19
International arrest warrant in absentia, p. 40, para. 1.3.3.
2Ibid., p. 42, para. 1.3.4.3; English translation, p. 43.
2Law of 16 June 1993 on the punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law, Moniteur belge
(Belgian Official Gazette), 23 June 1993, pp. 9286 and 9287.
2Law of 5 August 2003 on serious violations of international humanitarian law, Moniteur belge, 7 August 2003,
pp. 40506-40515.
2Note Verbale of 10 October 2001 from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.1.
24
Complaints, civil-party applications , order to place Hissène Habré underhouse arrest of 3February2000,
judgments of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal of 4 July 2000 (MB, Vol. II, Ann. D.3, corrected)
and of the Court of Cassation of Senegal of 20 March 2001 (MB, Vol. II, Ann. D.4); MB, p. 18, para. 1.23. - 17 -
National Committee of Enquiry of the Chadian Mini stry of Justice, whic h the Agent has just
mentioned. This letter rogatory was executed in Chad between 26 February and 8 March 2002 25.
21. On 7 October 2002, in response to a le tter from the Belgian investigating judge, the
Chadian Ministry of Justice confirmed that a ny jurisdictional immunity which Mr.Habré had
26
enjoyed as a former Head of State had been lifted in 1993 .
22. A large number of other investigative meas ures were undertaken in Belgium as a result
of these two letters rogatory, including the examin ation of the complainants and several witnesses
and the analysis of a considerable number of documents forwarded by the Chadian authorities in
execution of the letter rogatory I referred to a mo ment ago. Overall, these investigative measures
generated 27 binder files of documents, showing the importance which the Belgian courts attached
24
to establishing the truth and the fact that, despite the complex nature of the case, the Belgian
judicial record has already reached an advanced stage.
23. On 19 September 2005, the famous pivotal da te, after four years of investigations, the
Belgian judge responsible for the case, Mr. Daniel Fransen ⎯ currently the pre-hearing judge at the
Special Tribunal for Lebanon ⎯ issued an arrest warrant, called an “international arrest warrant
in absentia”, against Hissène Habré as the “perpetrator or co-perpetrator” of acts that may be
classified, in Belgian law and in international law, in particular, as crimes of torture and crimes of
27
international humanitarian law . This arrest warrant led to four successive extradition requests,
which we will come back to later.
(ii)International arrest warrant, first extradition request and related consequences:
19 September 2005 to 19 February 2009
24. On 19 September 2005, then, the arrest warrant was circulated by Interpol to Senegal in
the form of a red notice. In accordance with practice at Interpol, of which both Belgium and
25Application instituting proceedings by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Republic of Senegal,
16February2009, para. 4, Ann.3, MB, Vol. II, Ann.C.7; MB, p.18, para. 1.24 and Vol. II, Ann.C.1 (international
arrest warrant in absentia, sheet 14).
26Application instituting proceedings by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Republic of Senegal,
16February2009, para.5, Ann.4, MB, Vol. II, Ann.C.7; response from the Minister of Justice of Chad lifting any
possible immunity of Mr. Habré, 7 October 2002, MB, Vol. II, Ann. C.5.
27MB, p. 19-20, paras. 1.28-1.30. - 18 -
28
Senegal are members , a red notice arrest warrant serves as a request for provisional arrest with a
view to extradition.
25. Three days later, on 22 September 2005, Be lgium sent a Note Verbale to the Senegalese
29
authorities seeking Mr.Habré’s extradition . In accordance with practice in Senegal and its
extradition legislation 30, the original of the arrest warrant and a copy of the laws applicable to the
offences indicted were attached to this Note Verbale. The Senegalese authorities have thus had the
original of the international arrest warrant i ssued by the Belgian investigating judge since
September 2005. This fact is important, as we shall see.
26. On 16 November 2005, in the absence of any reaction from the Senegalese authorities,
25
Belgium asked Senegal what action it was taking on its extradition request 31.
27. On 25 November 2005, the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal ruled on
the request for extradition. I should point out here that according to the Senegalese law on
extradition, which is at tab8 in your folder, the Chambre d’accusation is required to deliver an
opinion on every request for extradition. Wher e its opinion is favourable, extradition may be
authorized by decree. An unfavourable opinion, however, means that the executive must refuse
extradition. In the present case, the Chambre d’accusation did not issue an opinion, favourable or
otherwise. It simply declared that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the lawfulness of the
proceedings and the validity of the arrest warrant ag ainst a Head of State, and it invited the Office
of the Public Prosecutor to make a better case 32. In reaching its decision, the Chambre
d’accusation applied to Mr.Habré, the former President of Chad, provisions of the Senegalese
constitution and legislation conferring national juri sdictional immunity on the Senegalese Head of
State. Furthermore, it considered that Belgium’ s request related to acts committed by a Head of
State in the performance of his duties, and stated that Mr.Habré, the former Head of a foreign
28
Belgium: 7 September 1923; Senegal: 4 September 1961.
2Note Verbale of 22 September 2005 from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.2.
3Senegalese Law No. 71-77 of 28 December 1971 on extradition, tab 8 in the judges’ folder.
3Note Verbale of 16 November 2005 from the Belgian Embass y in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.3.
3Judgment No.138 of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal of 25 November 2005, MB,
Vol. II, Ann. B.6., corrected. - 19 -
State, should have jurisdictional immunity, and that “this privilege is intended to survive the
cessation of his duties as President of the Republic, whatever his nationality . . .” 33. Yet a copy of
the letter by which Chad confirmed, if necessary, that Mr.Habré’s immunity had been lifted as
early as 1993 was among the documents forwarded to the Senegalese authorities by Interpol.
Moreover, the arrest warrant on which the request for extradition is based expressly refers to this
34
letter on the lifting of his immunity .
28. On 30 November 2005, having discovered that the Chambre d’accusation had delivered
a ruling, Belgium for the third time sought an offi cial response to its extradition request, together
26 with clarification of the Senegalese Government ’s position following the decision of the Dakar
Court of Appeal 35.
29. On 7 December 2005 36Senegal forwarded to Belgium a communiqué from the Ministry
37
of Foreign Affairs “on the Hissène Habré case” . Mr. President, the first sentence of the
communiqué speaks volumes: “Senegal is in no way directly involved in the Hissène Habré Case”.
It states that it had decided to submit the case, “which is not a Senegalese case but an African
case”, to the next African Union Summit of Heads of State, scheduled for January 2006, which
should, according to Senegal, “indicate which court has jurisdiction to determine this case” 38.
30. On 23 December 2005 Senegal replied to the previous three Notes Verbales from
Belgium and stated that “the judgment of the [Chambre d’accusation] puts an end to the judicial
stage of the proceedings”. It also informed Belgium that it had decided to transfer the
“HissèneHabré records” to the African Union, saying that that decision “will... have to be
33Judgment No.138 of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal of 25 November 2005, MB,
Vol. II, Ann. B.6., corrected.
34International arrest warrant in absentia, sheet 16, para. 2.4.3., MB, Ann. C.1.
35Note Verbale of 30 November 2005 from the Belgian Embass y in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.4.
36Note Verbale of 7 December 2005 from the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Belgium, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.5.
37Communiqué of 27 November 2006 (sic) from the Ministry of Foreign Affa irs “on the Hissène Habré case”,
attached to the Note Verbale of 7 December 2005 from the Se negalese Embassy in Brussels to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Belgium, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.5.
38Ibid. - 20 -
considered as reflecting the position of the Senegalese Government pursuant to the judgment of the
[Chambre d’accusation]” 39.
31. On 11 January 2006 Belgium noted the transfer of the case to the African Union and
once again asked Senegal to notify it of its final decision on Belgium’s request for extradition 40. It
expressly referred to the Convention against Torture to reiterate its interpretation of the obligation
aut dedere aut judicare , but also to place this new approach within the framework of the
negotiation procedure covered by Article 30 of the Convention against Torture.
27 32. In the absence of a response to this lat est Note Verbale, Belgium sent a further Note
41
Verbale on 9 March 2006 . Again within the framework of Article 30 of the Convention against
Torture, it asked Senegal how it should interpret the transfer of the case to the African Union,
wondering whether it meant that Senegal no longer in tended to extradite Mr. Habré to Belgium or
to have him judged by the competent Senegalese judicial authorities.
33. In view of the importance of the case, the sending of these Notes Verbales was
systematically accompanied by personal approaches from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the
Senegalese authorities, sadly without success.
34. As almost another two months had gone by without any response from Senegal, the
Belgian Department of Foreign Affairs summ oned the Senegalese diplomatic authorities in
42
Brussels for talks, at which they were handed a further Note Verbale . This Note Verbale, dated
4May 2006, noted the absence of an official r eaction by the Senegalese authorities to Belgium’s
previous approaches. Belgium reiterated its in terpretation of the obligation “aut dedere aut
judicare” and referred to the possibility of recourse to the arbitration procedure provided for in
Article30 of the Convention against Torture if the dispute between the two States could not be
resolved by negotiation.
39
Note Verbale of 23 December 2005 from the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Belgium, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.6.
40
Note Verbale of 11 January 2006 from the Belgian Embass y in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.7., tab 4.1 in the judges’ folder.
41Note Verbale of 9 March 2006 from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.8.
42Note Verbale of 4 May 2006 from the Ministry of Forei gn Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in
Brussels, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.9.; tab 4.2 in the judges’ folder. - 21 -
35. On 9 May 2006 the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels stated, without further explanation,
that Senegal’s Notes Verbales of 7and 23 Dece mber 2005 had replied to Belgium’s request for
43
extradition . It also stated that by transferring th e Habré case to the African Union Summit,
Senegal “is acting in accordance with the spirit of the principle of ‘aut dedere aut judicare’”
provided for in Article 7 of the Convention against Torture.
36. On 20 June 2006, noting the impasse reach ed in the written and verbal bilateral
exchanges on the interpretation and application of a number of key provisions of the Convention
against Torture, Belgium stated in a Note Verbale that the attempts to negotiate with Senegal since
28 November2005 had failed, and it proposed to Se negal that they should use the arbitration
procedure 4.
37. Eight months later, on 20 and 21 Fe bruary 2007, without making any reference
whatsoever to the dispute noted by Belgium, Se negal informed it that it had just amended its
legislation in order to close the legal loophole which had prevented the Senegalese courts from
45
hearing the Habré case . Furthermore, Senegal announced that a Working Group had been set up
charged with defining the conditions and procedures necessary for prosecuting and judging
Mr. Habré, but stated that the trial required s ubstantial funds which it could not “mobilize without
the assistance of the International community” 46. It also stressed the fact that these legislative
amendments and the creation of the Working Group were to be seen solely in connection with its
execution of the political mandate conferred on Senegal by the African Union.
38. On 8 May 2007, the Belgian authorities once again questioned the Senegalese authorities
about the dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the obligation aut dedere aut
judicare, which Belgium had systematically highlighted since January 2006, and asked in particular
whether the new legislative provisions would allow Mr.Habré to be tried in Senegal and in what
43
Note Verbale of 9 May 200[6] from the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Belgium, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.10.; tab 4.3 in the judges’ folder.
4Note Verbale of 20 June 2006 from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.11.; tab 4.4 in the judges’ folder.
4Note Verbale of 20 February 2007 from the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Belgium, MB, Vol. II, Ann.B.12 a nd Note Verbale of 21February2007 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal to the Belgian Embassy in Dakar, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.13.
4Note Verbale of 21February 2007 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Senegal to the Belgian Embassy in
Dakar, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.13. - 22 -
time periods . Finally, Belgium offered its assistance to the Senegalese courts under the relevant
rules on international judicial co-operation, pr ovided that proceedings against Mr.Habré were
actually brought before a Senegalese judicial authority. Otherwise, with whom could it co-operate?
39. On 5 October 2007, Senegal informed Belg ium that it intended to organize the trial of
Mr. Habré, referring, on this occasion, to the Conve ntion against Torture, and it invited Belgium to
29 48 49
attend a meeting of donors in Dakar , which was eventually held on 24 November 2010 . During
the following months, Belgium declared that it w as prepared to help to organize Mr. Habré’s trial
in Senegal and repeated its proposal for judicial co-operation 50. These proposals once again
received no response from the Senegalese authorities.
51 52 53
40. However, in October and December 2008 and in February 2009 the Senegalese
President, Mr.Wade, announced in the press that he intended to put an end to Hissène Habré’s
house arrest in Senegal if the funding for organizing the trial was not available in time. He added
that he also intended to transfer Mr. Habré outside Senegal, to the African Union or to Chad, but on
54
no account outside Africa . On 19 February 2009, Belgium filed an application before the Court
55
instituting proceedings against Senegal and, as a result of the alarming statements referred to
earlier, requested provisional measures 56.
47
Note Verbale of 8 May 2007 from the Belgian Embassy in Da kar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Senegal,
MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.14.
48
Note Verbale of 5 October 2007 from the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Belgium, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.15.
49Letter of 22 June 2011 from the Agent of Senegal to th e Registrar of the Court, Note No.2 on the latest
developments in Senegal’s preparations for the trial of Mr. Hissène Habré since the delivery of the Order of 28 May 2009
on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Belgium, p. 5, para. 4.
50Note Verbale of 2 December 2008 from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, handed over on 16 December 2008, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.16.
51Le Quotidien, “Le président Abdoulaye Wade au journal espagnol Público: La loi française est allée trop loin’”,
15 October 2008.
52La Croix , “Abdoulaye Wade: ‘Le Sénégal ne peut accepter la fuite des cerveaux’”, 18 December 2008,
available online: http://www.la-croix.com/Actualite/S-informer/Monde/Abdoulaye-Wade-Le-Se…-
la-fuite-des-cerveaux-_NG_-2008-12-18-681628.
53
Jeune Afrique, “Procès Habré: Wade menace de remettre à l’UA l’ancien dictateur tchadien”, 3 February 2009,
available online:http://www.jeuneafrique.com/Article/DEPAFP20090203T092442Z.
54
Ibid.
55Application instituting proceedings by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Republic of Senegal,
16 February 2009, MB, Vol. II, Ann. C.7.
56Request for the indication of provisional measures su bmitted by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium,
16 February 2009, MB, Vol. II, Ann. C.8. - 23 -
41. Mr. President, Members of the Court, we are now three and a half years on from the
dispatch of the first request for extradition an d the Senegalese authorities have still not taken any
practical steps to investigate or prosecute Hiss ène Habré, nor have they extradited him, while
President Wade is suggesting that he might be expelled from Senegalese territory.
30 B. From February 2009 to date
42. On 28 May 2009, the Court’s Order on the request for the indication of provisional
measures noted the solemn declaration made by Senegal whereby it “will not allow Mr.Habré to
leave Senegal while the present case is pending before the Court” ( Questions relating to the
Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Provisional Measures, Order of
28May2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009 , p.154, para.68). The discussions between Senegal, the
European Union, the African Union and, more wi dely, the international community on the funding
and organization of the trial of Hissène Habré continued after that declaration. Professor Eric David
will return to that in a few moments.
43. During the same period, Belgium mainta ined a constructive attitude towards Senegal
with a view to helping it fulfil its obligation to try Mr.Habré, failing his extradition. This
consisted, firstly, in Belgium making frequent offers to provide Senegal with judicial co-operation,
even after the Application was filed before th e Court (i); secondly, in Belgium sending three
further extradition requests to Senegal in 2011 and 2012 (ii); and, thirdly, in Belgium’s response to
57
the Senegalese President’s declarations whereby he wished to “get rid of” Mr. Habré (iii). These
three points will now be examined in turn.
(i) Belgium’s offers of judicial co-operation to Senegal
44. First of all, the offer of judicial co-operation: as Belgium had not yet received any
concrete response from Senegal re garding its offers to provide judicial co-operation, on
23 June 2009 it repeated its offer of co-operation for the third time and, moreover, offered to bear
all the costs associated with the execution of a letter rogatory from Senegal aimed at enabling the
57
Remarks made during an interview given by the Presid ent of Senegal on France 24 and RFI, judges’ folder,
tab5.1, reported in an article d 12 December 2010, available online at:http://www.france24.com/fr/20101212-
senegal-wade-tchad-ancien-dictateur-habre-hissen-proces-justice-union-africaine. - 24 -
31 Senegalese judicial authorities to examine, or even to obtain a full copy of, the very detailed
58
Belgian record of investigation .
45. Senegal responded in two stages. First of all, on 29 July 2009, it merely noted Belgium’s
offer59. Then, on 14 September 2009, it informed Belgium that two of the four judges appointed to
lead the preliminary inquiry against Mr.Habré w ould be designated to visit Belgium. However,
the appointment of these four judges was never followed by any actual investigation 60.
46. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is now March 2012, that is, two and a half years
after that announcement by Senegal. Yet the Se negalese letter rogatory, the costs of which
Belgium offered to bear, has still not transpired. One may therefore wonder how it is possible to
determine properly how to fund, organize and conduct a criminal trial when no competent
judicial authority has examined the existing judicial record. Such inaction is baffling. Particularly
61
as Belgium repeated its offer to provide judicial co-operation on 14 October 2009 ,
23 February 2010 62, 28 June 2010 , S63 5eptembe2 r011 64 and again more recently on
65
17 January 2012 . Mr. President, the offer of co-operation still stands of course.
32 47. In light of the foregoing, Belgium cannot but strenuously reject the contention in
Senegal’s Counter-Memorial whereby “[t]he truth is that Belgium has never wanted
66
Mr. Hissène Habré to be tried in Senegal” . Mr. President, the truth lies elsewhere. Belgium has
stated explicitly and on several occasions that it is in favour of Mr. Habré’s trial being organized by
58
Note Verbale from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Senegal, 23 June 2009,
MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.17.
59
Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Senegal to the Belgian Embassy in Dakar, 29 July 2009,
MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.18.
60
Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affair s of Senegal to the Belgian Embassy in Dakar,
14 September 2009, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.19.
61
Note Verbale from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Forei gn Affairs of Senegal,
14 October 2009, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.20.
62
Note Verbale from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Forei gn Affairs of Senegal,
23 February 2010, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.22.
63
Note Verbale from the Belgian Embassy in Dakar to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Senegal, 28 June 2010,
MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.26.
64
Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels,
5September 2011, Letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated
8 September 2011, Ann. 3.
65
Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels,
17January 2012, Letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Re gistrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated
23 January 2012, Ann. 4.
66
CMS, p. 51, para. 204. - 25 -
67
the country in whose territory he current ly resides, that is to say Senegal . It has offered eight
times to provide judicial co-operation with a view to enabling the judicial record against Mr. Habré
to be submitted to the competent Senegalese authorities. On five occasions it has repeated its offer
68
to bear all the costs of such judicial co-operation . The fact is, Mr.President, Members of the
Court, that all these offers went unheeded by Senegal. That is the fact of the matter.
(ii) Belgium’s extradition requests sent to Senegal in 2011 and 2012
(a) Second extradition request: 15 March 2011
48. Let us now turn to the extradition requests transmitted in 2011 and 2012. In light of the
facts recalled above, on 15 March 2011 Belgium transmitted a second extradition request to the
69
Senegalese authorities . This new request was, once again, accompanied by the documents
required under Senegalese law on extradition, namely the certified true, or authenticated, copy of
the international arrest warrant issued against Mr. Habré ⎯ the original being in the possession of
the Senegalese authorities since September2005 ⎯ and the texts applicable to the offences in
question.
49. Faced with the continued silence of the Senegalese authorities, Belgium twice had to ask
33
Senegal what steps were being taken in regard to its new extradition request 70.
50. In July 2011, Senegal informed Belgiu m that the new extradition request sent by the
above-mentioned Note Verbale of 15 March 2011 had been referred to the competent Senegalese
67Belgian Notes Verbales dated 15 March 2011 (letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on
the latest developments, 21 March 2011, Ann. 4), 5 September 2011 (letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of
the Court on the latest developments, dated 8 Septemb2011, Ann.3) and 17 January 2012 (letter from the Agent of
Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated 23 January 2012, Ann. 4).
68Belgian Notes Verbales dated 23 J une 2009, MB, Vol.11, B.17, 14 Oct ober 2009 (MB, Vol.II, Ann.B.20),
23February 2010 (MB, Vol.II, Ann. B.22), 28 June 2010 (MB, Vol.II, Ann. B.26) and 5 September 2011 (letter from
the Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated 8 September 2011, Ann. 3).
69Note Verbale from the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels ⎯
15March 2011, Letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Re gistrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated
21 March 2011, Ann. 4.
70
Note Verbale from the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels ⎯
23 June 2011, annexed to the letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments,
dated 29 June 2011; Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Be lgium to the Senegalese Embassy in
Brussels ⎯ 11 July 2011, letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated
18 July 2011, Ann. 6; judges’ folder, tab 7.1. - 26 -
authorities and that any further correspondence relating to the extradition request against Mr. Habré
would be transmitted to the Belgian authorities as soon as possible 71.
51. On 23 August 2011, Senega l transmitted to Belgium judg ment No. 133 rendered by the
Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal on 18 August 2011 ⎯ a few days later ⎯,
which declared Belgium’s second extradition request inadmissible 72. The main reason for it being
found inadmissible was that the extradition request was allegedly not accompanied by the papers
73
and documents required under Senegalese law . Senegal added that Belgium should, if it so
wished, submit a new request for extradition that complied with the requirements laid down by
Senegalese law.
52. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the judgment of the Chambre d’accusation raises a
number of questions. Firstly, the only document to which the Chambre d’accusation 74 refers as the
75
basis for Belgium’s new extradition request is Belgium’s Note Verbale dated 11 July 2011 . It is
34
abundantly clear from the wording of the Note Verbale ⎯ which can be found in your folders at
tab 7.1 ⎯ that it is simply a reminder of the extradition request transmitted previously by Belgium
by the Note Verbale of 15 March 2011. Furthermore ⎯ and I repeat ⎯, in their Note Verbale of
July2011, which can be found in your folders at tab7.2, the Senegalese authorities explicitly
acknowledge receipt of Belgium’s Note Verbale of 15March and its annexe s and explicitly state
71
Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affa irs of Senegal to the Belgian Embassy in Dakar ⎯
19 July 2011, judges’ folder, tab 7.2.
72
Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affair s of Senegal to the Belgian Embassy in Dakar,
23 August 2011.
73
Senegalese Law No. 71-77 of 28 December 1971 on extradition, Art. 9:
“Every request for extradition shall be addr essed to the Senegalese Government through
diplomatic channels and be accompanied either by a judgment or finding of guilt, including by default or
in absentia, or by a document of criminal procedure formally or by ope ration of law ordering that the
suspect or the accused be sent for trial before a crimin al court or tribunal, or a warrant of arrest or any
other document having the same fo rce, issued by the judicial authorities, provided that these latter
documents contain a precise statement of the act in respect of which they have been issued and the date of
that act.
The above documents must be produced in original or authentic office form.
The requesting Government must at the same time produce a copy of the legal texts applicable to
the offence in question. It must attach a statement of the facts of the case.” Judges’ folder, tab 8.
74
Third citation and first recital of Judgment No. 133 of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal
of 18 August 2011, judges’ folder, tab 9.
75
Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels,
11 July 2011, Letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments, Ann. 6; judges’
folder, tab 7.1. - 27 -
that they will transmit these documents to the competent authorities. It is apparent from reading
the judgment that these documents were quite clearly not transmitted by the Chambre d’accusation.
Only the reminder Note Verbale of 11July2011 was transmitted, which led to the ruling of
inadmissibility.
(b) Third request for extradition: 5 September 2011
53. Following the ruling of the Chambre d’accusation , Belgium sent Senegal a third
extradition request, by Note Verbale dated 5 September 2011, to the Senegalese Embassy in
Brussels 76, which acknowledged receipt thereof. Th at Note Verbale was, once again, duly
accompanied by the documents required under the Senegalese law on extradition, namely an
87-page document containing the certified ⎯ that is the authentic office ⎯ copy of the arrest
warrant for Mr.Habré, together with the re levant provisions of na tional legislation and
international law applicable to the offences charged. I should like to recall that the original arrest
warrant and annexes are still in the possession of the Senegalese authorities. On 11 January 2012,
the Belgian authorities learnt from the press 77 that, by a decision of 10January2012 78, the
35 Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal had found Belgium’s third extradition request
to be inadmissible. As of today, that decisi on has still not been transmitted to Belgium by the
Senegalese authorities. Last Thursday, however, that decision was transmitted by Senegal to the
Court which in turn forwarded it to us on the following day. The Chambre d’accusation this time
states that it did receive the correct Note Verbale, the one dated 5 Septembe r 2011, but points out
that
“notwithstanding the affirmation by th e Applicant in .i.s ote [of
5 September 2011] that it has produced ‘a new certified copy of the international arrest
warrant in absentia issued on 1S 9eptembe2r00[5] by investigating
judge D. Fransen . . . against Mr. Habré’, there are grounds for concluding that the
present Application has not been submitte d in accordance with the... legal
76
Note Verbale from the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in Brussel⎯
5September 2011, letter from the Agent of Belgium to thRegistrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated
8 September 2011, Ann. 4.
7In particular, an article published on the website of Radio France Internationale: “Senegalese court refuses to
extradite former Chadian President Hissène Habré to Belgium”, available online at:www.rfi.fr/afrique/20120111-
justice-senegalaise-refuse-extrader-vers-belgique-ancien-president-tchadien-hissene.
7Judgment No. 7 of 10 January 2012 of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal, letter from the
Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated 23 January 2012, Ann. 3. - 28 -
provisions; indeed, the copy of the international arrest warrant placed on the file is not
79
authentic” .
54. Mr.President, if I may briefly touch on the concepts of certified copy and authentic
office copy that are at issue here. Article9 of the Senegalese law on extradition, which can be
found at tab8 of your folders, provides that any extradition request shall be addressed to the
Senegalese Government through diplomatic cha nnels accompanied by a document providing the
basis for the extradition request. Under this law, the document may be an arrest warrant, provided
that “an original or authentic office copy” is pr oduced together with the copy of the legal texts
80
applicable to the offences charged . The term “authentic office copy ” thus refers to an official
document that is a true copy of the original, wh en the original cannot, for whatever reason, be
submitted. A certified copy is precisely such a documen t. It must therefore be concluded, in the
light of this information, that the Chambre d’accusation does not appear to have received from the
Senegalese authorities the authenticated documents annexed by Belgium to its third extradition
request, but rather simply photocopies thereof.
55. The findings of the Chambre d’accusation are particularly surprising given that at no
time did the Senegalese authorities inform Belgiu m that the documents submitted in support of the
extradition requests might not be in compliance. The fact that the Senegalese Foreign Minister
36 transmitted the extradition requests to the Minister of Justice nevertheless indicates that, under
Article 10 of the Senegalese law on extradition ⎯ reproduced at tab 8 ⎯, the file should have been
checked and that at the time it was transmitted to the Senegalese Minister of Justice it did indeed
include all the necessary documents required under that law. Finally, at no time did the Senegalese
Minister of Justice ever indicate that the requests we re not complete or in order, for which there is
also a provision under the same law. Need I say more?
79
Judgment No. 7 of 10 January 2012 of the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal, letter from the
Agent of Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated 23 January 2012, Ann. 3.
80Senegalese Law No. 71-77 of 28 December 1971 on extradition, Art. 9, judges’ folder, tab 8. - 29 -
(c) Fourth extradition request: 17 January 2012
56. On 17 January 2012, Belgium transmitted a fourth extradition request to the Senegalese
81
Embassy in Brussels accompanied by all the requisite documents, as was the case with the three
previous requests. On 23 January 2012, the Senegalese Embassy in Belgium acknowledged receipt
of Belgium’s Note Verbale containing the new extradition requests and the accompanying
documents and stated that all these documents had since been transmitted to the competent
authorities. Belgium has not received any further information at all regarding the follow-up to this
request.
(iii) Statements made by Mr. Wade, President of Senegal
57. Turning to my final point, Mr.President, I would now like to draw your attention to a
number of statements and decisions made by th e Senegalese President after Belgium filed its
Application. They are indicative of the prevarication of the Senegalese authorities in this case.
58. Indeed, despite the assurances of the Se negalese authorities to try Mr.Habré, the
President of Senegal has continued to make statements in the press declaring his intention to get rid
of the Habré case. There was an increasing number of su ch statements following the ruling of the
37 Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) 82 whereby the
Senegalese courts were no longer able to try Mr.Ha bré. ProfessorEricDavid will return to this
point later on.
59. President Wade in particular declared on 11 December 2010 that he intended to “get rid
83
of” HissèneHabré and ask the African Union to take the case over . On 7 February 2011, he
declared that Senegal was not entitled to try Mr. Ha bré and that it was “rid” of the case. He added
8Note Verbale from the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in Brussels⎯
17January 2012, letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Rgistrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated
23 January 2012, Ann. 4.
82
Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States, case oHissein Habré v. Republic of
Senegal, judgment of 18 November 2012, letter from the Agent Senegal to the Registrar dated 22 June 2011, Note
No.2 on the latest developments in Sene gal’s preparations for the trial of Mr.Hissène Habré since the delivery of the
Order of 28 May 2009 on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Belgium, Ann. 2.
8See in particular the article publish ed on the website of France24 on 11December2012, available online at:
http://www.france24.com/fr/20101212-senegal-wade-tchad-ancien-dictateur…-
africaine. - 30 -
that he would not hand Mr.Habré over to Belgium and that it was up to the African Union to
assume its responsibilities 84.
60. Furthermore, on the evening of Friday 8 July 2011, Belgium learnt, from the press, that
the Senegalese President had decided to expel Mr .Habré to Chad three days later, on Monday
11 July 2011 85. In an interview on Senegalese television, Mr.MadickéNiang, the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Senegal, stated in this regard that “it has turned out today, [Senegal is] not able
to try [Mr. Habré]. What else was left for us to do? Extradite him, perhaps. Belgium is the only
country to have requested his extradition. President Wade felt that to extradite him to Belgium was
to hand over an African to the Europeans. Ther efore, the only remaining option was to expel him
to his own country...” 86. Mr.Niang further stated that Se negal had asked the African Union to
send observers to attest to the expulsion of Mr.Habré to Chad being carried out correctly 87. In a
press release, Belgium expressed its regret that “in the light of the Senegalese Government’s
commitment to not allow Hissène Habré to leave Senegal as long as the dispute with [Belgium] has
38 not been resolved... [Senegal] is not complyi ng with its obligations towards the International
88
Court of Justice in The Hague” . In a press release reproduced in your folders at tab6.3, the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights al so urged Senegal to review its decision to
89
expel Mr. Habré to Chad .
61. In the wake of these reactions, Sene gal announced on 10July2011 that it was
suspending its decision to expel Mr.Habré to Chad “in view of the request made by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights” and th at it “intends forthwith to enter into
consultations with the United Nations, the Africa n Union and the international community in order
8La Croix, “Abdoulaye Wade says he is rid of the Hi ssène Habré trial”, available online athttp://www.la-
croix.com.prd-jsp.bayardweb.com/Abdoulaye-Wade-se-declare-dessaisi-du-proces-de-Hissene-Habr/documents
/2454507/4077.
8See in particular the article from L’Express posted online on 8 July 2011: “Senegal to extradite Hissène Habré
to Chad”, available online at: http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/2/monde/le-senegal-va-extrader-hissen…-
tchad_1010711.html.
8Transcript of an interview with Mr.Madické Niang, Mi nister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal, on Senegalese
television on 9 July 2011 (available online at:.youtube.com/watch?v=kbnjZttnsfQ), judges’ folder, tab 6.1
8Ibid.
8Press release dated 10 July 2011 from the Belgian Ministry of Foreign A ffairs, Letter from the Agent of
Belgium to the Registrar of the Court on the latest developments, dated [18 July 2011], Ann. [3].
89
Press release dated 10 July 2011 from the High Commi ssioner for Human Rights, available online at:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38993&Cr=Chad&Cr1#, judges’ folder, tab 6.3. - 31 -
that a rapid settlement can be found, since the j udgment of the Court of Justice of the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) precludes it from trying Mr.HissèneHabré and
recommends the creation of a special court . . .” 9. Mr. President, there is no mention of the solemn
assurance given before this Court. No mention of Belgium’s request for extradition.
62. On 11 July 2011, Belgium expressed concern over Senegal’s decision ⎯ which was not
implemented ⎯ to expel Mr. Habré from its territory and hand him over to the Chadian authorities,
recalling that this decision was in breach of the assurances given by Senegal before this Court, and
91
urged Senegal to reaffirm its assurances . This request has so far remained unanswered.
63. Mr.President, Members of the Court, to sum up I shall very briefly underline the
following facts:
1. In 2000, eight people filed a complaint, unsuccessfully, against Mr.Habré before the
Senegalese courts;
2. In 2000 and 2001, 21 other people filed a complaint before the Belgian courts;
39 3. Following an in-depth inquiry, a Belgian inves tigating judge issued an arrest warrant against
Mr. Habré in 2005;
4. Belgium then sent four successive requests for extradition to Senegal, without success so far;
5. In 2008, a number of victims filed a new complaint in Senegal;
6. And yet, throughout this period, over the last twelve years, the Senegalese authorities have not
undertaken any actual investigation or proceedings in respect of Mr. Habré.
64. Mr. President, I now ask you to give the floor to Professor Eric David, who will set out
the facts relating to interventions by actors extern al to the States present before you today, which
have contributed to Belgium’s efforts to ensure that Mr. Habré is brought to justice.
65. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind attention.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Dive. The Court will hear the presentation of
Professor David after a ten-minute break. The sitting is adjourned for ten minutes.
90
Press release dated 10 July 2011 from Mr.Madické NianMinister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Senegal, letter from the Agent of Belgium to the Registrar on the latest developments, dated 18 July 2011, Ann. 5.
91Note Verbale from the Ministry oForeign Affairs of Belgium to the Senegalese Embassy in Brusse⎯s
11 July 2011, judges’ folder, tab 7.1. - 32 -
The Court adjourned from 11.40 to 11.50 a.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is resumed and I now give the floor to
counsel for Belgium, Mr. Eric David. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. President.
3. THE FACTS : EXTERNAL INTERVENTIONS
Mr. President, Members of the Court, the year s pass but the excitement remains. Appearing
before the Court on behalf of one’s country remains an unaccustomed honour for me.
40 1. Following Mr.Dive’s description of the factual twists and turns in the dispute, it falls to
me to examine the role played by various actor s other than Belgium and Senegal in the facts
relating to this case. These actors are many in num ber and variety. The following have all, at one
time or another, been involved in the dispute: the Committee against Torture, the African Court on
Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African
States, the African Union, the European Union and several States.
Mr. President, each of these interventions c ould give grounds for detailed descriptions and
lengthy arguments which would take up the whole of the morning, but rest assured, given the short
time available to me, I shall be brief and succinct.
As in a play, these different actors will be presen ted in the order in which they appear on the
stage.
A. The procedure before the Committee against Torture
2. As Mr. Dive has just mentioned, victims of the Hissène Habré régime had filed complaints
in Senegal against Mr.Habré in January2000. Th e lack of success of these complaints led their
authors, in April 2001, to submit a “communica tion” to the Committee against Torture established
by the United Nations Convention of 1984 (the Co nvention against Torture). In substance, the
applicants considered that Senegal had violated Article5, paragraph2, and Article7 of the - 33 -
Convention by not prosecuting HissèneHabré. Se negal had raised objections of inadmissibility
which were rejected by the Committee in November 2001 92.
3. In its final decision delivered in 2006 ⎯ which you will find at tab 10 in your folders ⎯
the Committee found in favour of the applicants si nce Senegal had not adopted “such measures as
may be necessary” to establish its jurisdiction (A rt.5, para.2) and had failed to prosecute
93
Hissène Habré (Art. 7) ; the Committee observed that the obligation to prosecute Hissène Habré
94
existed “at least at the time when the compla inants submitted their complaint in January2000” ,
thus even before Belgium’s extradition request, on account of the mere fact of HissèneHabré’s
41 presence in Senegal. Furthermore, the Committee conc luded “that, by refusing to comply with the
extradition request, the State party has again failed to perform its obligations under Article 7 of the
Convention” 95. Allow me to underline the word “again”.
4. This decision was rendered on 17 May 2006. However, Senegal took no action on it other
than to amend its legislation, as it states in its Counter-Memorial 96. The amendments thus made by
Senegal to its Penal Code and its Code of Criminal Procedure are certainly a step in the right
direction, but it must be noted, first, that this was a very late step, and secondly, that the adoption of
a law which is not applied does not meet the obligation to take concrete action to prosecute
Hissène Habré. For this reason, the Committee ag ainst Torture continued to demand explanations
from Senegal on the institution of proceedings ag ainst HissèneHabré or his extradition to a State
willing to prosecute him.
I shall not detail all the requests addressed by the Committee to Senegal with regard to the
action taken by the latter on the decision rendered by the Committee in May2006 9, but would
merely point out that, since that decision was taken, nearly six years ago now, Senegal has still not
put Hissène Habré on trial or indeed extradited him to Belgium.
92
Committee against Torture, communication No. 181/2001, Suleymane Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, decision of
17 May 2006, United Nations, doc. CAT/C/36/D/181/2001, paras. 6.1-6.5, in MB, Vol. II, Ann. E.2
93
Ibid., paras. 9.1-9.5.
94Ibid., para. 9.8.
95Committee against Torture, communication No. 181/2001, Suleymane Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, decision of
17 May 2006, United Nations, doc. CAT/C/36/D/181/2001, para. 9.11, in MB, Vol. II, Ann. E.2.
96CMS, para. 38.
97
Report of the Committee against Torture, United Nations, doc. A/63/44, 2008, pp. 154-155; ibid., doc. A/64/44,
2009, p. 170; ibid., doc. A/66/44, 2011, pp. 196 et seq., and 226. - 34 -
5. Six months ago, at the end of November 2011, the Rapporteur on follow-up to individual
communications of the Committee against Torture, Mr.FernandoMariño, wrote to Senegal to
remind it of
“its obligations under the Convention against Torture ‘to submit the present case to its
competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution or, failing that, since Belgium has
made an extradition request, to comply with that request, or, should the case arise,
with any other extradition request made by another State, in accordance with the
Convention’” . 98
This letter, Mr.President, Members of the Court, sets out precisely what Belgium has
expected of Senegal since 2005. No further comment is therefore needed. I now come to the
interventions of the African Union.
42 B. The interventions of the African Union
6. Mr.President, Members of the Court, as we have been reminded this morning, in
November 2005, the Chambre d’accusation of the Dakar Court of Appeal found that it lacked
jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a request for the extradition of a former foreign Head of
State, the reason given by the Chambre d’accusation being that Senegalese law provides for the
immunity of the Head of State of Senegal 99, and this allegedly prevented Senegal from extraditing
Hissène Habré to Belgium.
7. There is no point in commenting further on this judgment. It is particularly important to
note that, in January2006, Senegal then transfe rred the case file to the Assembly of the African
Union, which decided to mandate a committee of eminent African jurists “to consider all
aspects... of the HissèneHabré case” and “the op tions available”, taking into account the “total
100
rejection of impunity” .
8. In June 2006, the committee affirmed that Senegal was obliged to bring Hissène Habré to
101
justice , mainly on account of the decision of the Committee against Torture; the committee
98Letter to the Ambassador of Senegal to the United Nations, 24 Nov. 2011.
99Court of Appeal of Dakar, Chambre d’accusation, judgment No. 138, 25 Nov. 2005, MB, Vol. II, corrected text
of Ann. B.6.
100African Union, doc. Assembly/AU/Dec. 103 (VI), MB, Vol. II, Ann. F.1.
101
African Union, report of the Committee of Eminent African Jurists on the Hiss èneHabré case, n.a.,
paras. 17-18. - 35 -
added that “Senegal is the country best qualified to try HissèneHabré since it is bound by
102
international law to comply with its obligations” [translation by the Registry].
At its seventh session, in July 2006, the A ssembly of the African Union, having been
informed of the committee’s report, mandated Senegal to “prosecute and ensure that Hissène Habré
103
is tried, on behalf of Africa, by a competent Senegalese court with guarantees for fair trial” .
9. In response to this mandate, the National Assembly of Senegal, in January 2007, amended
the Penal Code to provide for criminal sanctions for genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity; it also amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in April 2008, the Constitution.
Henceforth, Senegalese courts could exercise univer sal jurisdiction and it was specified that the
non-retroactivity of criminal laws does not preven t the prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes,
crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide 10.
43 10. From February 2007, the HissèneHabré case developed in a new direction involving
105
budgetary issues and giving rise to the intervention of new actors in addition to the African
Union, namely the European Union and certain States.
The early discussions on the budget for the Hissène Habré trial can be encapsulated in a few
figures. In July 2007, the President of Senegal, Mr. Wade, referred to an amount of approximately
€29million as the cost of the trial 106. In November 2008, Senegal lowered this figure to
107
€27 million , not without the intervention of the Presid ent of the European Union, in the person
of Mr. Sarkozy at that time, who wrote to President Wade that “[t]he investigative stage of the trial
has not started and no credible budget has been established” 108.
102
African Union, report of the Committee of Eminent African Jurists on the Hissène Habré case, n.a., para. 29.
103
African Union, doc. Assembly/AU/Dec. 127 (VII), MB, Vol. II, Ann. F.2, para. 5 (ii).
10CMS, Vol. I, paras. 42et seq. and 169 et seq.
10Note Verbale of 21 February 2007 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Senegal to the Belgian Embassy in
Dakar, p. 3, MB, Vol. II, Ann. B.13.
10Letter from President Wade to the Belgian Prime Minister, 18 July 2007, MB, Vol. II, Ann. D14.
10Letter from the Senegalese authorities to the Europ ean Commission delegation in Dakar, 4Nov2008, MB,
Vol. II, Ann. D.10.
108
Letter from President Sarkozy to President Wade, 15 Dec. 2008, MB, Vol. II, Ann. D.11. - 36 -
11. Parallel to these financial issues, a third type of actor, separate from the main
protagonists in the case, now came into the pictur e, namely judicial bodies, in the form of the
African Court on Human and People’s Rights and the Court of Justice of ECOWAS.
C. The intervention of judicial actors: the African Court on Human and People’s
Rights and the Court of Justice of ECOWAS
12. Following a fruitless effort by a Chadian national to bring proceedings against Senegal in
the African Court on Human and People’s Rights in August 2008 ⎯ I say fruitless because the
109
Court quickly found that it lacked jurisdiction ⎯ two months later, in October2008,
HissèneHabré seised the Court of Justice of ECOWAS, alleging violations of human rights
committed against him by Senegal, and citing: vi olation of the non-retroactivity of criminal
law, violation of the right to an effective remedy, violation of the right to a fair trial and
violation by Senegal of various rules containe d in the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and
Good Governance.
44 13. After dismissing the preliminary objections raised by Senegal 11, in its judgment on the
merits of 18 November 2010, the ECOWAS Court of Justice rejected in s ubstance the application
of HissèneHabré other than in so far as it acknow ledged that the rule of non-retroactivity of
criminal laws could be violated by the amendmen t of the Senegalese Penal Code effected in 2007,
since that amendment to Senegalese law made it possible to convict a person for an act which, prior
111
to the amendment, was not punishable under Senegalese law . The court added, however, that
although the acts alleged against Hi ssèneHabré “did not constitute criminal offences under
national law in Senegal . . . they were held to be so under international law” 11. And these words
were emphasized with regard to international law by the court itself. The court cited for this
purpose Article15, paragraph2, of the Interna tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
109
African Court on Human and People’s Rights, Applic ation No.001/2008, 15Dec.2009, paras.1, 21 and 23
(5-6), MB, Vol. II, Ann. E.3.
11ECOWAS Court of Justice, Hissène Habré v. Republic of Senegal , Preliminary Judgm ent, 14 May 2010,
General List No. ECW/CCJ/APP/07/08, MB, Vol. II, Ann. E.l.
11ECOWAS Court of Justice, Hissène Habré v. Republic of Senegal, Judgment, 18 November 2010, General List
No. ECW/CCJ/APP/07/08, para. 58, CMS, Vol. II, Ann. 2.
11Ibid.; emphasis added in the original French. - 37 -
noted that, by mandating Senegal to try HissèneHabré “on behalf of Africa”, the African Union
was merely applying Article 15 of the above-mentioned Covenant. And the court concluded that it
“agrees with the noble objectives contained in the African Union’s mandate, reflecting
that organization’s support for the principles of ending impunity for serious human
rights violations and of protecting victims’ rights” 113.
The court pointed out nevertheless that, “i n accordance with international custom”, the
proceedings against HissèneHabré should be conducted before an ad hoc international judicial
114
body .
14. Belgium will refrain from commenting on this judgment, by which it is not bound and
115
which has been criticized by legal writers , but it has two observations to make: first, the Court
of Justice notes that, according to Senegal itself, at the time when Hissène Habré seised the court,
“no proceedings against the applicant” were pending before the Senegalese courts 116.
45 As to the substance, the judgment goes on to stress the need to try Hissène Habré in
accordance with the principle of ending impunity.
Senegal does accept this as a principle, but it re mains wishful thinking, since its Minister for
Foreign Affairs states that “the establishment of a special court [is] an unacceptable solution to
Senegal, which has undertaken to have Mr. Hissène Habré tried by its own courts and not by a new
117
court established on a questionable basis” [translation by the Registry].
15. In its Counter-Memorial, Senegal states that , despite that judgment, “Senegal’s efforts to
prepare for the . . . trial of Mr. Hissène Habré have continued unabated” 118.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, Belgium would be happy to agree with this statement
by Senegal, but it is forced to observe that bot h in 2009, when it filed its Application with this
11ECOWAS Court of Justice, Hissène Habré v. Republic of Senegal, Judgment, 18 November 2010, General List
No. ECW/CCJ/APP/07/08, para. 58, CMS, Vol. II, Ann. 2.
11Ibid., para. 61.
11Jan Arno Hessbruegge, “ECOWAS Court Judgment in Habré v. Senegal Complicates Prosecution in the Name
of Africa”, ASIL Insights ,15,l.0s,3eavailable at:
http://www.asil.org/pdfs/insights/insight110203pdf.pdf; Valentina SPIGA, “Non-retroactivity of Criminal Law: A New
Chapter in the Hissène Habré Saga”, JICJ, Vol. 9, 2011, pp. 5-23.
11ECOWAS Court of Justice, Habré v. Senegal, Judgment, 18 Nov 2.010, General List
No. ECW/CCJ/APP/07/08, para. 23, CMS, Vol. II, Ann. 2.
11Communiqué from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, MN r.iang, July 2011, on
www.rfi.fr/afrique/20110710-dakar-suspend-expulsion-ex-president-tchadi….
11CMS, Vol. I, para. 70. - 38 -
Court, and one year later, in 2010, when the Court of Justice of ECOWAS delivered its judgment,
and again in 2011, when Senegal reacted to that judgment, and today, in 2012, as I speak to you
now, no form of prosecution has been instituted.
16. However, pursuant to the efforts of th e African Union, a meeting of experts was
scheduled for late May-early June 2011 to work out the arrangements for an expeditious trial of
Hissène Habré by a special international court; hardly had the meeting begun than Senegal, on the
119
pretext of not having received the documents in time, postponed it sine die .
D. The current situation in the light of the interventions of the African Union,
the European Union and certain States
17. While it is clear to Belgium that, at the time when it seised the Court, Senegal had not
fulfilled its international obligations by prosecuting Hissène Habré or extraditing him to Belgium,
the following facts confirm this observation. On the one hand, President Wade affirmed his desire
120
“to proceed in accordance with the undertakings” given by Senegal to the Court ⎯ this Court ⎯
46 while on the other hand, he declared on four separ ate occasions that he wished “to dispose of the
121
matter of” Hissène Habré and to refer the case file to the African Union .
18. At the same time, he let it be understood th at the trial of Hissène Habré was a budgetary
matter, and this in fact gave rise to meetings between representatives of the European Union, the
African Union and Senegal, in 2009 and 2010, to prepare a draft budget in an effort to facilitate the
122
trial . Lastly, on the occasion of a round table held in Dakar, in November 2010, attended by
Senegal, Belgium, the African Union, the European Union, several member States of the European
Union (France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Ne therlands, Spain and the United Kingdom) and
non-members of the European Union (Canada, Chad, Switzerland and the United States), the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner fo r Human Rights and the United Nations Office
11Note Verbale from Belgium to Senega l, 23 June 2011, annexed to the letter of 29 June addressed by Belgium
to the Court.
12Letter of 2June 2009 from the Senegalese authorities to the European Commission delegation in Dakar, MB,
Vol. II, Ann. D.13.
12RFI interview of 20 Dec. 2010, statement to the Senegalese Council of Ministers on 13 Jan. 2011, press release
of 20 Jan. 2011 and interview of 7 Feb. 2011 in the newspaper La Croix, NV Belgique in Senegal, 15 Mar. 2011.
12See MB, Vol.I, paras.1.88-1.94; letter of 2 June 2009 from the Senegalese authorities to the European
Commission delegation in Dakar, MB, Vol. II, Ann.D.13; letter of 21Oct. 2009 from the AU Commission to the EU
Commission, MB, Vol. II, Ann. D.18 (with attachments). - 39 -
for Project Services, all these actors adopted a final document in which eight donors agreed to fund
123
the trial up to an amount of €8.6million , and Belgium agreed to contribute up to €1million
124
towards that amount . Senegal confirmed its agr eement to that budget in its
Counter-Memorial 125.
19. At its 2011 and 2012 sessions, the Assembly of the African Union reiterated on each
126
occasion its commitment to fighting impunity and confirmed the mandate given to Senegal to try
Hissène Habré 127; in 2011 (at the 17th session), the Assembly called for the swift organization of
his trial or his extradition to any country willing to put him on trial 128; at the 18th session (quite
recently, in 2012), the Assembly observed that the Dakar Court of Appeal had not yet taken a
47 decision on the Belgian request for the extradition of Hissène Habré ⎯ the last request referred to
by Mr.Dive 129 ⎯ and that Rwanda was willing to organize his trial 130. The Assembly also took
note of the report prepared by the Commission of th e African Union. This report states that the
priority given to an African solution by the Asse mbly could be revised in view of the difficulties
associated with that solution and the principle of rejecting impunity 131. The report also emphasizes
that a trial could be organized expeditiously in Belgium, this being essential given the age of the
132
victims of the Hissène Habré régime, some of whom are already deceased .
20. Without reference to the interventions of international institutions like the European
Union and the African Union, some States have ag reed to provide financia l assistance to Senegal
for the Hissène Habré trial ⎯ which testifies to these States’ high level of commitment to a purely
12Donors Round Table for the funding of the Hissène Habré trial ⎯ final document , 24 Nov. 2010, para. 16,
CMS, Vol. II, Ann. 5.
12Ibid., para. 15.
12CMS, Vol. I, para. 81.
12AU doc. Assembly/AU/Dec.340(XVI), para.4, MB, Vo l. II, Ann. F.1 ; AU doc., Assembly/AU/8(XVII),
;pA2a. doc. Assembly/AU/12 (XVIII), para. 3, available at: http://www.africa-
union.org/root/au/Documents/Decisions/decisions_fr.htm.
12AU doc. Assembly/AU/ Dec. 340 (XVI), op. cit., para3., MB, VolI.I, AnnF..1; AU doc.,
Assembly/AU/8 (XVII), op. cit., para. 3.
12AU doc. Assembly/AU/8 (XVII), op. cit., para. 3.
12AU doc. Assembly/AU/12 (XVIII), op. cit., para. 4.
130
Ibid., para. 5.
131
AU doc. Assembly/AU/(1X 1VII) Rev. 1, par1a5., available at: http://www.africa-
union.org/root/au/Documents/Decisions/decision_fr.htm.
132
Ibid., para. 16. - 40 -
humanitarian and moral cause 133. It is noteworthy that one of these States, Chad, is not only
prepared to contribute to the cost of the trial, but also, at a meeting with the Commission of the
African Union, supported extradition of the person concerned to Belgium.
21. The above-mentioned events concerning external aspects of this case, which I have
attempted to summarize to the best of my ability, give rise to three observations:
1. first observation: the European Union, the African Union and several States ⎯ including
Belgium ⎯ undertook to fund the trial of HissèneHabré at the Donors Round Table in
November2010; Senegal was present and accepte d a final budget of €8.6 million, that is ⎯
even so ⎯ 20 times the cost of the most expensive trial organized in Belgium for Rwandan
nationals who had been charged and prosecuted fo r crimes of genocide; the pledges made by
the contributing parties to this budget were firm and unconditional; Senegal accepted them, but
48 despite this acceptance, took no steps to try Hissène Habré: to Belgium’s knowledge ⎯ as has
already been said ⎯ no investigative measures were ordered, no Senegalese investigating judge
responded to the invitation to come to Belgium at the latter’s cost to examine the 27 binders ⎯
27 binders ⎯ in the investigative file compiled by the Belgian courts;
2. second observation: the African Union continues to insist that Senegal fulfil its obligations in
the fight against impunity;
3. third and final observation: despite the gestur es of support of the European Union, the African
Union and other States ⎯ including Belgium and Chad ⎯ in particular for the funding of the
Hissène Habré trial in Senegal, the latter has not yet performed the obligations incumbent on it
under international law in respect of the fight against impunity for the crimes concerned.
Mr.President, Members of the Court, that concludes what I myself acknowledge to be an
inordinately lengthy enumeration of the extern al aspects of the dispute between Belgium and
Senegal. I am left with the always pleasant dut y of thanking you for your patient attention and
asking you to be good enough to give the floor to Sir Michael Wood.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor. Je donne maintenant la parole à
sir Michael Wood.
133
Press release by the Chadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 22 July 2011. - 41 -
M. WOOD :
4. LA COMPÉTENCE DE LA C OUR EN VERTU DE LA CONVENTION CONTRE LA TORTURE
ET LA RECEVABILITÉ DE LA REQUÊTE DE LA B ELGIQUE
I. Introduction
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, c’est pour moi un très grand
honneur que de plaider devant vous au nom du Royaume de Belgique.
2. La Belgique invoque deux bases de compétence distinctes. Premièrement, le paragraphe 2
de l’article 36 du Statut de la Cour et les déclara tions faites par la Belgique et le Sénégal en vertu
de cette clause facultative. Deuxièmement, le para graphe 1 de l’article 36 du Statut de la Cour et
l’article 30 de la convention des Nations Unies contre la torture. La compétence conférée à la Cour
en vertu de la clause facultative s’étend à l’in tégralité du différend en cause dans la présente
instance, y compris en ce qu’il se rapporte à la convention contre la torture. L’article 30 de cette
49
convention n’est donc qu’une base de compétence supplémentaire et parallèle, qui s’applique au
différend dans la mesure où celui-ci se rapporte à l’interprétation ou à l’application dudit
instrument.
3. Par commodité, nous commencerons cependant, comme nous l’avons fait dans notre
mémoire 135, par l’article30 de la convention contre la torture. C’est d’ailleurs ce que la Cour
elle-même a fait dans son ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires, dans laquelle elle a
conclu qu’elle avait compétence prima facie en vertu de cet instrument ( Questions concernant
l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique cS. énégal), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p.151, par.53). Cela ne remet toutefois
nullement en cause le fait que, selon nous, la compétence de la Cour en vertu de la clause
facultative s’étend au différend dans son intégr alité, ycompris en ce qu’il se rapporte à la
convention contre la torture. L’existence de bases de compétence parall èles n’a en effet rien
d’inhabituel.
134
MB, par. 3.03.
13MB, chap. III. - 42 -
4. Monsieur le président, j’examinerai pour ma part la question de la compétence de la Cour
en vertu de l’article30 de la convention contre la torture, ainsi que celle de la recevabilité de la
requête de la Belgique. M. David se penchera ensu ite sur la question de la compétence en vertu de
la clause facultative.
5. Je me permets de renvoyer la Cour au chapitre III du mémoire de la Belgique, dans lequel
cette question de la compétence est succinctement examinée. Bien qu’il n’ait soulevé aucune
exception d’incompétence ou d’irrecevabilité dans le délai de trois mois prévu par le Règlement de
la Cour, le Sénégal a consacré pas moins des de ux cinquièmes de son cont re-mémoire à ce qu’il a
appelé «[l]es obstacles à l’examen du fond de la requête de la Belgique» 13. Au chapitre 3 de cette
pièce, il remet ainsi en question la compétence de la Cour en vertu de la convention contre la
torture et, semble-t-il, de la clause facultative.
6. L’argumentation du Sénéga l est résumée au paragraphe 121 de son contre-mémoire, dans
lequel il prie la Cour de constater
«non seulement l’absence de différend entr e les Parties, ce qui devrait [la]
conduire…à se déclarer incompétente, mais aussi et surtout l’inexécution par l’Etat
requérant de son obligation d’engager la procédure de négociation et d’arbitrage avant
toute saisine de la Cour, ce qui devrait entraîner l’irrecevabilité de la requête belge».
50 7. En résumé, le Sénégal fait valoir deux ar guments s’agissant de la compétence : l’absence
de différend, argument qui vaut en ce qui concerne la compétence de la Cour en vertu de la clause
facultative comme de la convention contre la tort ure; et l’absence de tentatives de négociation et
d’arbitrage, ce qui n’est pertinent qu’en ce qui c oncerne l’article30 de la convention contre la
torture. Or, comme nous le verrons, le Sénégal n’a, en fait, réussi à démontrer le bien-fondé
d’aucun de ces deux arguments.
II. La compétence de la Cour en vertu de l’article 30 de la convention contre la torture
8. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, la Belgique et le Sénégal sont
tous deux parties à la convention contre la torture, qui est entrée en vigueur entre eux le
25 juillet 1999. Ni la Belgique ni le Sénégal n’ont fait de déclara tion en vertu du paragraphe 2 de
136
CMS, chap. 3, p. 31-53. - 43 -
l’article 30. Ils sont donc tout deux liés par la clause compromissoire figurant au paragraphe 1 de
ce même article.
o
9. Copie de la convention figure, en français et en anglais, sous l’onglet n 2 du dossier de
plaidoiries. Permettez-moi simplement de donner lecture du paragraphe1 de l’article30, qui est
ainsi libellé :
«Tout différend entre deux ou plus des Et ats parties concernant l’interprétation
ou l’application de la présente Convention qu i ne peut pas être réglé par voie de
négociation est soumis à l’arbitrage à la demande de l’un d’entre eux. Si, dans les
six mois qui suivent la date de la demande d’arbitrage, les parties ne parviennent pas à
se mettre d’accord sur l’organisation de l’arbitrage, l’une quelconque d’entre elles
peut soumettre le différend à la Cour internationale de Justice en déposant une requête
conformément au Statut de la Cour.»
10. Comme vous le voyez, cette disposition énonce quatre conditions :
⎯ premièrement, un «différend» doit exister un «entre de ux ou plus des Etats parties concernant
l’interprétation ou l’application de la … convention» ;
⎯ deuxièmement, le différend ne doit pouvoir «être réglé par voie de négociation» ;
⎯ troisièmement, l’une des parties au différend doit avoir fait une demande d’arbitrage ; et
⎯ quatrièmement, «les parties ne [doivent pas être] parv[enues] à se mettre d’accord sur
l’organisation de l’arbitrage» «dans les six mois qui suivent la date de la demande».
11. Ces conditions, qui sont cumulatives (Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo
(Nouvelle requête: 2002) (République démocratique du Congo c.Rwanda), compétence et
recevabilité, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2006 , p. 39, par.87), ont, selon nous, toutes été remplies. Je les
examinerai tour à tour.
51 A. L’existence d’un différend
12. La première condition est donc l’existence d’un différe nd. Monsieur le président,
Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, vous avez jugé, prima facie, lors de l’examen des mesures
conservatoires sollicitées en la présente affaire, qu’un différend sur l’interprétation ou l’application
de la convention contre la torture opposait les Par ties à la date du dépôt de la requête (c’est-à-dire
le 19 février 2009) (Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique
c.Sénégal), mesures conservatoires, ordonn ance du 28 mai 2009, C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p.149, fin - 44 -
du par.47). La Cour a également conclu, prima facie , que ce différend demeurait à l’époque du
prononcé de l’ordonnance (c’est-à-dire le 28mai 2009), et ce, bien que sa portée ait pu évoluer
depuis le dépôt de la requête (ibid., fin du par. 48).
13. Il ressort clairement de l’exposé des faits présenté ce matin ⎯ par MM. Dive et David ⎯
que, bien qu’il ait connu des rebondissements pour le moins inhabituels, le différend opposant les
Parties continue —et c’est fort regrettable— d’ex ister. La Belgique c onsidère que le Sénégal a
manqué, et continue de manquer, à l’obligation qui lu i incombe en vertu de la convention contre la
torture de prendre les mesures nécessaires afin de poursuivre M.HissèneHabré ou, à défaut, de
l’extrader vers la Belgique. Ce manquement a continué tout au long des presque trois années qui se
sont écoulées depuis que la Cour a rendu son ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires.
Le Sénégal nie, pour sa part, avoir violé la convention contre la torture.
14. Monsieur le président, avant d’en venir aux faits et à la jurisprudence, permettez-moi de
rappeler les termes dans lesquels la Cour a, prima facie, estimé que le différend continuait d’exister
à la fin du mois de mai2009. Je le fais non parce qu’il s’agirait là d’un prononcé revêtant un
caractère définitif ⎯tel n’est bien évidemment pas le cas ⎯, mais parce qu’il s’agit, selon nous,
d’un juste reflet de la situation qui existe aujourd’hui encore. Comme vous vous en souviendrez, la
Cour a, dans son ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires, indiqué ce qui suit :
«Considérant…que les Parties semblent...continuer de s’opposer sur d[es]
questions d’interprétation ou d’application de la convention contre la torture, telles
que celle du délai dans lequel les obligations prévues à l’article 7 doivent être remplies
ou celle des circonstances (difficultés financières, juridiques ou autres) qui seraient
pertinentes pour apprécier s’il y a eu ou non manquement auxdites obligations; que
les vues des Parties, par ailleurs, continuent apparemment de diverger sur la façon
dont le Sénégal devrait s’acquitter de ses obligations conventionnelles; et qu’en
conséquence il appert que, prima facie, un différend de la nature de celui visé à
l’article 30 de la convention … demeure entre les Parties…» (Ibid., par. 48.)
15. Monsieur le président, ce passage renfer me les principaux éléments du différend qui
continue d’exister aujourd’hui. Les Parties continue nt de s’opposer quant au «délai dans lequel les
obligations prévues à l’article 7 doivent être remplies». Elles continuent d’être en désaccord quant
52
aux «circonstances (difficultés financières, ju ridiques ou autres) qui seraient pertinentes pour
apprécier s’il y a eu ou non manquement auxdit es obligations». Leurs vues «continuent…de
diverger sur la façon dont le Sé négal devrait s’acquitter de ses ob ligations conventionnelles». En - 45 -
conséquence, les Parties continuent de s’opposer sur la question de la responsabilité internationale
du Sénégal et des conséquences juridiques qui en découlent, telles qu’exposées dans la deuxième
partie des articles sur la responsabilité de l’Etat.
er
16. Dans l’arrêt qu’elle a rendu le 1 avril 2011 en l’affaire Géorgie c. Fédération de Russie
(Application de la convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de
discrimination raciale (Géorgie c.Fédération de Russie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt du
er
1 avril2011, par.29-30), la Cour a rappelé la jurisprudence constante en ce qui concerne
l’existence d’un différend. Il n’est pas nécessaire que je donne ici lecture des paragraphes 29 et 30
de cet arrêt dans leur intégralité, mais les pass ages suivants, qui s’appliquent également à la
convention contre la torture, font autorité :
⎯ La Cour a commencé par indiquer qu’«il n’y a[vait] pas de raison de s’écarter du sens
généralement admis du terme «différend» dans la clause compromissoire contenue dans
l’article22 de la [convention contre la discrimination raciale]» ( ibid., par.29). Cela vaut
également pour l’article 30 de la convention contre la torture ;
⎯ le point de départ de la jurisprudence ( ibid., par. 30) mentionnée à cet égard est le prononcé de
la Cour permanente en l’affaire Mavrommatis, suivant lequel «[u]n différend est un désaccord
sur un point de droit ou de fait, une contradiction, une opposition de thèses juridiques ou
d’intérêts entre deux personnes» ( Concessions Mavrommatis en Pal estine, arrêt n°2, 1924,
C.P.J.I., série A, n o2, p.11). Autrement dit, «[i]l convi ent de «démontrer que la réclamation
de l’une des parties se heurte à l’opposition manifeste de l’autre»» ( Application de la
convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale
er
(Géorgie c. Fédération de Russie), exceptions préliminaires , arrêt du 1 avril 2011, par. 30), et
ce, bien que, comme il a été relevé, cela doive être apprécié en fonction du contexte ;
⎯ dans l’affaire Géorgie c. Russie, la Cour a ensuite précisé que la question de savoir s’il existe
un différend demandait à être «établie objectivement» par elle et que, pour ce faire, elle devait
s’attacher aux faits de l’espèce. «Il s’agit d’une question de fond, et non de forme.» ( Ibid.,
par. 30.) ; - 46 -
53 ⎯ puis, elle a indiqué que «l’existence d’un di fférend p[ouvait] être déduite de l’absence de
réaction d’un Etat à une accusation, dans des circonstances où une telle réaction s’imposait»
(ibid.) ; cette remarque pourrait se révéler particulièrement pertinente en la présente espèce ;
⎯ enfin, le différend doit porter sur «l’interprétati on ou l’application de la…convention». S’il
n’est pas nécessaire qu’un Etat mentionne, dans ses échanges avec l’autre Etat, un traité
particulier, il doit néanmoins s’être référé assez clairement à l’objet du traité pour que l’Etat
contre lequel il formule un grief puisse savoir qu’un différend existe ou peut exister à cet égard
(ibid.). En la présente espèce, la Belgique a, à maintes reprises, mentionné les obligations qui
trouvent leur expression dans la convention contre la torture ⎯et sont, d’ailleurs, énoncées
dans des dispositions spécifiques de cet instrument ⎯ et, plus généralement, l’obligation de
soumettre la question aux autorités chargées d’engager des poursuites judiciaires, à défaut
d’extradition.
17. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, dans la présente affaire, les
éléments de preuve attestant l’existence d’un différe nd entre la Belgique et le Sénégal au sujet de
l’interprétation ou de l’applica tion de la convention contre la torture, différend qui existait au
moment du dépôt de la requête et s’est poursuivi jusqu’à aujourd’hui, sont, selon nous, écrasants.
18. Il ressort clairement de leurs écritures que les Parties interprètent différemment plusieurs
points importants de la convention. Elles divergen t ainsi sur la question de savoir si de simples
déclarations, des engagements de prendre à l’aven ir certaines mesures ou ce qui est présenté par le
Sénégal comme un «commencement d’exécution» des obligations suffisent pour que celui-ci
satisfasse effectivement aux obligations qui lui incombent aux termes de la convention, y compris
aux dispositions relatives à l’obligation «d’extrade r ou de poursuivre». Les Parties sont en
désaccord sur le point de savoir si le fait que le Sénégal n’a ni extradé ni poursuivi
M.HissèneHabré pendant une longue période constitu e une violation de la convention. Enfin,
elles divergent sur la question de savoir si des difficultés d’ordre pécuniaire ou autre pourraient, au
regard de la convention, excuser le fait que le Sénégal n’a pas pris les mesures prescrites par cet
instrument. - 47 -
19. L’existence de ces divergences ressort tout à fait clairement de l’abondante
correspondance entre la Belgique et le Sénégal, ainsi que des contacts qu’ils ont eus par les voies
diplomatiques.
54 20. Dans l’affaire Géorgie c.Fédération de Russie (ibid. , par.51-62, 65-104, 108-112 ), la
Cour a examiné de manière approfondie chaque docum ent et déclaration invoqué par la Géorgie.
Selon nous, il n’est pas nécessaire de suivre une approche aussi détaillée en la présente espèce car
⎯ contrairement à l’affaire précitée ⎯ il ressort clairement d’un simple coup d’Œil aux documents
et déclarations invoqués par la Belgique qu’ils soulèvent expressément des questions litigieuses,
qui relèvent notamment de la convention contre la torture.
21. M.Dive a déjà appelé votre attention sur certains passages essentiels des échanges
diplomatiques. Il est donc inutile que j’y revienne. La situation est claire. La Belgique a, à
maintes reprises, fait part de son interprétation de dispositions particulières de la convention contre
la torture et, le moment venu, indiqué clairement qu’il existait un différend au sens de l’article 30.
Le Sénégal, pour sa part, semble avoir tout fa it pour éviter de répondre aux observations précises
formulées par la Belgique. Il a évité de mani fester son désaccord avec celle-ci sur certains points
spécifiques relevant de la convention. Il n’a pas réagi, dans des circonstances où une telle réaction
s’imposait.
22. La Cour se souviendra que, au moment des audiences relatives à la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires, le Séné gal a semblé vouloir se présenter comme agissant
uniquement et volontairement dans le cadre d’un mandat de l’Union africaine, et non au titre des
obligations qui sont les siennes aux termes de la convention contre la torture. Cela a constitué alors
un point de divergence fondamental entre la Belgique et le Sénégal au sujet de l’interprétation et de
l’application de la convention qui, malgré les assurances données dans le contre-mémoire 137,
semble perdurer, puisque les autorités sénégalaises n’ont pas entièrement renoncé à cette position
intenable. Ainsi, lorsque le Sénégal a te nté de renvoyer M.HissèneHabré au Tchad en
juillet2011, le ministre sénégalais des affaires étrangères a cherché à justifier cette décision en
137
CMS, par. 108 et 225. - 48 -
invoquant le mandat de juger ou d’extrader M. Hi ssène Habré que l’Union africaine avait donné à
o 138
son pays (voir l’onglet n 6) .
23. Comme cela vous a été rappelé tout à l’he ure, la Belgique a tout d’abord communiqué
139
une demande d’extradition au Sénégal sous le couvert d’une note datée du 22 septembre 2005 à
laquelle, plus de six ans et demi après, elle n’a toujours pas reçu de réponse claire et suffisante.
Dans sa note du 30 novembre 2005 14, la Belgique a par ailleurs de mandé des éclaircissements sur
55 la décision de la cour d’appel de Dakar en da te du 25 novembre 2005. Plutôt que de lui répondre
141
directement, le Sénégal l’a, dans des notes en date des 7 et 23décembre2005 , informée qu’il
avait transféré le «dossier» à l’Union africaine.
24. La note du Sénégal en date du 7déce mbre2005 contenait simplement un communiqué
de son ministère des affaires étrangères dans lequel il était notamment indiqué, au dernier
paragraphe, que «l’Etat du Séné gal…s’abstiendra[it] de tout acte qui pourrait permettre à
M. Hissène Habré de ne pas comparaître devant la justice».
25. Soit le Sénégal a tenté de se retrancher derrière le transfert du dossier à l’Union africaine,
en invoquant l’«esprit» de l’article 7 de la conve ntion, soit il n’a tout simplement pas répondu aux
142
demandes d’information de la Belgique. Il n’y a guère que dans sa note du 23décembre2005
qu’il a fourni un semblant d’explication de la position qu’il a adoptée suite à l’arrêt rendu
le 25 novembre 2005 par la cour de Dakar, indiquant que «[l]a décision soumettant «l’affaire
Hissène Habré» à l’Union africaine devra[it] dès lo rs être considérée comme traduisant la position
du Gouvernement sénégalais suite à l’arrêt de la chambre d’accusation».
o
26. Sous l’onglet n 4 du dossier de plaidoiries, vous trouverez la note de la Belgique en date
143
du 11 janvier 2006 . L’article30 de la convention cont re la torture y était expressément
138Déclaration du ministre sénégalais des affaires étrangères, M.Madick éNiang, 9 et 10ju illet2011. Voir
également «AbdoulayeWade va renvoyer l’ex-président HissèneHabré au Tcha d», France24, 8juillet2011 (peut être
consulté à l’adresse suivante:http://www.france24.com/fr/20110708-senegal-tchad-abdoulaye-wade-presid…-
habre-idriss-deby-dictateur-crimes-humanite).
139
MB, vol. II, annexe B.2.
140Ibid., annexe B.4.
141Ibid., annexes B.5 et B.6.
142Ibid., annexe B.6.
143
Ibid., annexe B.7. - 49 -
mentionné et, à propos du transfert du -- je cite -- «dossier Hissène Habré» à l’Union africaine, il y
était précisé que la Belgique
«interprét[ait] la convention précitée, et plus particulièrement pour ce qui concerne
l’obligation «aut dedere aut judicare» y incluse, comme ne prévoyant d’obligations
que dans le chef d’un Etat, en l’occurrence, dans le cadre de la demande d’extradition
de M. Hissène Habré, dans le chef de la République du Sénégal».
144 o
27. Dans sa note du 4 mai 2006 ⎯ qui figure également sous l’onglet n 4 ⎯ la Belgique
a, une fois encore, indiqué qu’elle interprétait l’article7 de la convention «comme prévoyant
l’obligation pour l’Etat sur le territoire duquel est tr ouvé l’auteur présumé de l’extrader à défaut de
l’avoir jugé». Elle a ajouté que, si le différend relatif à cette interpréta tion ne pouvait être réglé,
cela entraînerait un recours à la procédure d’arbitrage prévue à l’article 30 de la convention.
o
56 28. Toujours sous l’onglet n 4, vous trouverez une note du Sénégal en date du
9 mai 2006 145, dans laquelle celui-ci prétend, à propos de l’interprétation de l’article7, «se
146
conforme[r] à l’esprit du principe «aut dedere aut punire»» . Cela ne revient pas à dire que l’on
agit conformément à l’obligation énoncée dans la convention.
29. Dès lors, Monsieur le président, nous c onsidérons qu’il apparaît clairement que le
différend entre la Belgique et le Sénégal s’est cristallisé entre la fin du mois de novembre2005,
lorsque la Belgique a demandé des éclaircissements su r l’arrêt de la cour d’ appel de Dakar, et le
11 janvier 2006, lorsqu’elle a fait savoir qu’elle estimait que les obligations du Sénégal perduraient
en dépit de la transmission du «dossier Hissène Habré» à l’Union africaine.
30. Il ressort en outre clairement des échanges qui ont eu lieu ensuite entre la Belgique et le
Sénégal que le différend se poursuit, et qu’il continue de s’amplifier. En application de
l’ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires, la Belgique a tenu la Cour informée de tous
ces développements par une série de lettres 147.
31. J’en viens maintenant à ce que le Sénégal indique, au chapitre 3 de son contre-mémoire,
au sujet de l’existence d’un différend. Il co mmence par citer la jurisprudence de la Cour
144
MB, annexe B.9.
145
Ibid., annexe B.10.
14Ibid. (les italiques sont de nous).
147Lettres en date des 16juillet2009, 23novembre 2010, 21 mars 2011, 29 juin 2011, 18 juillet 2011,
8 septembre 2011 et 23 janvier 2012, adressées au greffier de la Cour par l’agent de la Belgique. - 50 -
permanente et certaines de vos décisions les plus anciennes (Mavrommatis; Interprétation des
148
traités de paix ; Droit de passage ; et Cameroun septentrional) . Puis — de manière quelque peu
sibylline —, il écrit ceci :
«Il n’y a jamais eu, à vrai dire, une opposition ou un refus manifesté par le
Sénégal quant au principe ou à l’étendue des obligations impliquées par la convention
contre la torture. A aucun moment, les Parties en cause ne se sont opposées sur le
sens ou la portée à conférer à leur obligati on centrale, celle de «juger ou extrader».
Rien, dans les thèses de la Belgique, ne vient contredire l’interprétation que le Sénégal
fait de la convention. Tout au plus —et on l’a montré plus haut— la Belgique
pourrait-elle avancer que les modalités —et encore!— par lesquelles le Sénégal
entend s’acquitter de ses engagements ne correspondent pas à sa propre
compréhension des choses, ou encore au rythme auquel elle souhaiterait que ces
choses aillent…»
Cet extrait montre clairement, me semble-t-il, que le Sénégal reconnaît qu’il existe bel et bien un
différend concernant l’application de la convention ; il ajoute cependant : «il n’y a certainement pas
matière à un débat sur «les principes», exigence que la Cour semble avec constance maintenir et
57
149
consolider à travers sa jurisprudence» .
32. Toutefois, comme la Cour l’a récemment rappelé dans l’affaire Allemagne c. Italie,
«[l]’objet d’un différend soumis à la Cour est délimité par les demandes qui lui sont
présentées par les parties ... [C]e sont ces dernières qui délimitent l’objet du différend
que la Cour est appelée à trancher. C’est au regard de ces demandes qu’il appartient à
la Cour de rechercher si elle est compétente pour connaître de l’affaire.» ( Immunités
juridictionnelles de l’Etat (Allemagne c.Italie; Grèce (intervenant)) , arrêt du
3 février 2012, par. 39.)
33. Les arguments formulés par la Belgique dans son mémoire, ainsi que les assertions du
Sénégal dans son contre -mémoire, illustrent fort bien le différend qui ressort des échanges
diplomatiques entre les deux Etats. Selon la Belgique, le Sénégal a manqué aux obligations
internationales qui lui incombent aux termes de la convention contre la torture et d’autres règles de
150
droit international, et il doit mettre fin à son comportement illicite . Le Sénégal, quant à lui,
continue de soutenir qu’il n’a violé aucune des di spositions de la convention contre la torture ni
148CMS, par. 126-129, 131-133.
149
Ibid., par. 135.
150MB, p. 123. - 51 -
aucune autre règle de droit international général 15. On voit mal comment un désaccord entre Etats
sur un point de droit ou de fait pourrait être exprimé plus clairement.
34. Le Sénégal laisse ensuite entendre, da ns un assez long passage, que, en la présente
affaire, la Belgique demande à la Cour de rendr e un jugement déclaratoire, ce que celle-ci devrait
refuser de faire. Il semble tenter par là d’étay er son argument relatif à l’absence de différend entre
les Parties, et non avancer un argument distinct pour contester la faculté de la Cour de rendre un
jugement déclaratoire, ce qui serait clairement indéfendable. Qu’il s’agisse d’un autre argument
ayant trait à la compétence, voire à la recevabilité, toujours est-il que le Sénégal cite une série de
décisions, dont beaucoup sont d es avis consultatifs, et qu’il met particulièrement l’accent sur les
affaires des Essais nucléaires.
35. De notre point de vue, Monsieur le pr ésident, cet argument est totalement dépourvu de
fondement. A cet égard, un passage essentiel de l’argumentation du Sénégal semble figurer au
paragraphe 146 du contre-mémoire — je cite :
«Dès lors que le Sénégal a pris une po sition claire quant à l’application de la
58
convention de1984 contre la torture, d ès lors qu’allant au-delà d’une simple
déclaration de volonté il a pris les actes préparatoires à l’exécution d’un engagement
précis —qui est celui de «juger»—, il n’y a aucune raison qu’il soit demandé à la
Cour de troubler cette configuration claire , de rendre artificiellement conflictuelle une
situation qui ne l’est pas dans le fond.»
36. Un autre passage essentiel figure au paragra phe 157, dans lequel le Sénégal indique que
«non seulement [il] a posé des actes caractér istiques d’un commencement d’exécution de ses
obligations» —j’ouvre ici une parenthèse pour rappeler que cela a été rédigé en août2011, soit
environ deux ans et demi après l’introduction de la présente instance, et quelque six années après
que la Belgique eut demandé pour la première fois au Sénéga l d’extrader ou de poursuivre
Hissène Habré —, je reprends, donc :
«non seulement le Sénégal a posé des act es caractéristiques d’un commencement
d’exécution de ses obligations, mais il est délicat d’imaginer les implications d’une
acceptation de la demande formulée par la Belgique. Imagine-t-on en effet la Cour
demander au Sénégal d’exécuter un engageme nt que cet Etat lui-même a commencé à
accomplir ?» 152
151
CMS, p. 77, par. 284, 2).
152
Ibid., par. 157. - 52 -
Ensuite, nous apprenons dans le c ontre-mémoire du Sénégal que celui-ci «s’est longtemps attelé à
153
mettre en Œuvre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour le jugement de M. Habré» .
37. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, voilà un raisonnement
étrange, un raisonnement qui tourne en rond. Le Sénégal dit que la Co ur devrait s’abstenir
d’exercer sa compétence et de se prononcer en l’espèce parce qu’il n’a pas manqué à ses
obligations. Or, c’est précisément ce que la Belgique conteste, et c’est précisément la question que
la Cour est appelée à trancher.
38. Quand bien même le Sénégal commencerait ⎯dans les faits, et pas uniquement en
paroles ⎯ à se conformer à ses obligations internationa les, le différend ne disparaîtrait pas pour
autant et un arrêt de la Cour aurait toujours d es conséquences pratiques «en ce sens qu’il d[evrait]
pouvoir affecter les droits ou obligations juridique s existants des parties, dissipant ainsi toute
incertitude dans leurs relations juridiques» ( Cameroun septentrional (Cameroun c. Royaume-Uni),
exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1963, p. 34 ; Application de l’accord intérimaire du
13 septembre 1995 (ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine c. Grèce) , arrêt du 5 décembre 2011 ,
par. 47). Comme elle l’a récemment rappelé, en rejetant un argument similaire avancé par la Grèce
en l’affaire relative à l ’Accord intérimaire , rien ne s’oppose à ce que la Cour prononce des
jugements déclaratoires dans les cas appropriés ( Application de l’accord intérimaire du
59 13 septembre 1995 (ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine c. Grèce) , arrêt du 5 décembre 2011,
par.49. Voir également Cameroun septentrional (Cameroun c.Royaume-Uni), exceptions
préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil1963, p.37). Or, en la présente espèce, pareil jugement
permettrait effectivement de «reconnaître une situation de droit une fois pour toutes et avec effet
obligatoire entre les Parties, en sorte que la situa tion juridique ainsi fixée ne puisse plus être mise
en discussion, pour ce qui est des conséquences juridiques qui en découlent» ( Interprétation des
os o
arrêts n 7 et8 (Usine de Chorzów), arrêt n 11, 1927, C.P.J.I. sérieA n°13, p. 20 ; Application
de l’accord intérimaire du 13 septembre 1995 (ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine c. Grèce) ,
arrêt du 5décembre2011, par.49). La convention contre la torture est toujours en vigueur entre
les Parties et l’arrêt de la Cour permettrait eff ectivement de rétablir l’intégrité de cet important
153
CMS, par. 158. - 53 -
instrument relatif aux droits de l’homme. Il s’agit là d’un élément essentiel au regard des
assertions du Sénégal, qui prétend s’être conformé à la convention en tous points, alors que, comme
la Belgique le montrera demain, tel n’est tout simplement pas le cas.
39. Pour conclure sur ce sujet, Monsieur le président, il ne fait selon nous absolument aucun
doute qu’un différend continue d’opposer les Parties au sujet de l’interprétation et de l’application
de la convention contre la torture.
B. Le différend ne peut être réglé par voie de négociation
40. J’en viens à présent à la deuxième condition énoncée à l’article30 de la convention, à
savoir l’impossibilité de régler le différend par voie de négociation.
41. Ainsi qu’exposé par M.Dive plus tôt dans la matinée, la Belgique a tenté à plusieurs
reprises, pendant un temps considérable, d’engager des discussions et de parvenir à une solution
mutuellement acceptable. Malgré tous ces effort s de la Belgique pour aboutir à une solution
négociée ⎯efforts dont la Cour a pris acte dans son ordonnance de2009 sur les mesures
conservatoires ⎯, le différend n’a pu être réglé.
42. Les négociations sur le différend ont concrètement débuté lorsque la Belgique a adressé
au Sénégal sa note du 30novembre2005, dans laque lle elle demandait des éclaircissements à la
suite de l’arrêt rendu par la cour d’appel de Dakar. Ont ensuite eu lieu un long échange de notes et
des contacts diplomatiques à Dakar et à Bruxell es —autant d’échanges qui n’ont toutefois,
malheureusement, donné aucun résultat. Au mois de juin2006 au plus tard, il était clair que le
différend ne serait pas réglé par voie de négociation. Rien de ce qui s’est produit depuis lors ne
permet de conclure le contraire.
60 43. Vu le temps qu’il nous reste, je pense que je vais omettre quelques paragraphes.
Monsieur le président, je m’apprêtais à préciser que les circonstances de la présente espèce sont
fort différentes de celles de l’affaire République démocratique du Congo c. Rwanda , par exemple,
et à exposer en quoi elles s’en distinguent.
44. Il n’est pas nécessaire, je pense, de ra ppeler que, dans ses nombreuses notes, la Belgique
s’est expressément référée à des di spositions précises de la convention contre la torture. Elle a
demandé des éclaircissements, des assurances, mais sans résultat. - 54 -
45. En réalité, la présente espèce est assez similaire aux affaires Lockerbie, dans lesquelles la
Cour a jugé que le différend ne pouvait être réglé par la négociation, au motif que les défendeurs
avaient toujours soutenu qu’il n’existait «ent re les Parties aucun différend concernant
l’interprétation ou l’application de la convention de Montréal et que, de ce fait, il n’y avait, de
l’avis du défendeur, aucune question à régler par voie de négociation conformément à la
convention» (Questions d’interprétation et d’application de la convention de Montréal de 1971
résultant de l’incident aérien de Lockerbie (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne c.Royaume-Uni),
exceptions préliminaires, arrêt , C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 17, par. 21 ; Questions d’interprétation et
d’application de la convention de Montréal de 19 71 résultant de l’incident aérien de Lockerbie
(Jamahiriya arabe libyenne cE . tats-Unis d’Amérique), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt ,
C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 122, par. 20).
46. Après avoir annoncé que l’essentiel de ses exceptions d’incompétence (ou
d’irrecevabilité) portait sur les conditions de négocia tion et d’arbitrage, le Sénégal a examiné ces
questions de manière plutôt su ccincte dans son contre-mémoire 15. Il a cependant reproché à la
155
Belgique de tenter d’«opérer par surprise» , l’accusant de mauvaise foi et d’abus de droit
⎯allégations aussi graves qu’infondées, à l’appui desquelles il n’a pas produit le moindre
commencement de preuve, et que nous réfutons catégoriquement.
47. Monsieur le président, point n’est besoin de rappeler que, dans l’affaire Géorgie
c.Fédération de Russie , la condition selon laquelle il doit s’ag ir d’un différend qui ne peut être
réglé par la négociation s’est révélée cruciale. Or, le Sénégal n’a pas abordé cette affaire dans son
contre-mémoire et nous ignorons donc à ce stade s’il se fondera, d’une quelconque manière, sur cet
arrêt. Mais nous y reviendrons peut-être au second tour, à la lumière de ce que le Sénégal aura pu
en dire. S’il existe incontestablement des différences notables entre l’affaire susmentionnée
61 ⎯ycompris, d’ailleurs, la clause compromissoire alors en cause ⎯ et l’article30, on relève
cependant des similitudes entre ces deux dispositions.
154
CMS, par. 185-204 et 205-213, respectivement.
155
Ibid., par. 191-192. - 55 -
48. Ceci conclut, Monsieur le président, mon propos sur la condition selon laquelle il doit
s’agir d’un différend qui ne peut être réglé par voi e de négociation. Selon nous, il a été clairement
satisfait à cette deuxième condition.
C. Demande d’arbitrage
49. J’en viens à présent à la troisième condition énoncée à l’article 30, à savoir qu’il y ait une
demande d’arbitrage. Ainsi que M. Dive l’a précisé tout à l’heure, la Belgique a mentionné pour la
première fois la possibilité de l’arbitrage en vertu de l’article 30 dans sa note du 4 mai 2006 (onglet
o
n 4), et le Sénégal en a pris bonne note. Par la suite, dans sa note du 20 juin 2006, la Belgique a
officiellement demandé un arbitrage en vertu de l’article30. Ce document figure lui aussi sous
l’onglet n o4.
50. Dans l’examen qu’il consacre à l’arbitrage dans son contre-mémoire, le Sénégal refuse
de nouveau d’admettre que la note de la Belgique en date du 20juin2006 a bien été envoyée 156.
157
Pourtant, la Cour a traité ce point dans son or donnance en indication de mesures conservatoires ,
comme nous l’avions d’aille urs fait à l’audience en 1999 158. J’estime donc qu’il n’est pas
nécessaire de s’y attarder.
51. Le Sénégal avance dans s on contre-mémoire que la référence à l’arbitrage dans la note
du 20 juin 2006 était «évasive». La Cour a pourta nt dit dans son ordonnance que «la note verbale
en date du 20 juin 2006 cont[enait] une offre explicite de la Belgique au Sénégal de recourir à une
procédure d’arbitrage».
o
52. Onze mois plus tard, dans une note datée du 8mai2007 (ongletn 4), la Belgique a
rappelé ladite demande au Séné gal, se référant de nouveau a ux dispositions spécifiques de la
convention contre la torture qui sont en litige entre les Parties.
53. Selon nous, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, il a donc été satisfait à la troisième
condition énoncée à l’article 30.
156
CMS, par. 207.
157Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique c. Sénégal), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 150, par. 52.
158CR 2009/10, p. 21, par. 16 (Wood). - 56 -
D. Les Parties n’ont pas pu s’entendre sur l’organisation d’un arbitrage dans les six mois
62
54. La quatrième condition est que les Parties n’aient pas pu s’entendre sur l’organisation
d’un arbitrage dans les six mois. Comme nous l’avons vu, la demande d’arbitrage a été formulée le
20 juin 2006.
55. Le Sénégal n’a pas répondu à cette demande initiale, ni au rappel du 8mai2007. La
demande «est restée sans réponse», pour reprendr e l’expression employée par la Cour dans les
affaires Lockerbie 15. Celle-ci s’est de nouveau penchée sur le cas où le défendeur n’a pas répondu
à une proposition d’arbitrage da ns son arrêt en l’affaire République démocratique du Congo
c. Rwanda. Après avoir indiqué que «l’absence d’accord entre les Parties sur l’organisation d’un
arbitrage ne p[ouvait] en effet pas se pr ésumer», elle a, citant les affaires Lockerbie, ajouté que
«[l]’existence d’un tel désaccord [c’est-à-dire un désaccord sur l’organisation de l’arbitrage] ne
p[ouvait] résulter que d’une proposition d’arbitrage faite par le demandeur et restée sans réponse de
la part du défendeur ou suivie de l’expression par celui-ci de son intention de ne pas l’accepter»
(Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo (nouve lle requête : 2002) (République démocratique
du Congo c. Rwanda), compétence et recevabilité, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 200
6, p. 41, par. 92).
56. En la présente espèce, la Belgique a pr oposé un arbitrage, proposition qui est restée sans
réponse. Les Parties n’ont donc pas pu s’entendre sur l’organisation d’un arbitrage dans les six
mois, délai qui s’est écoulé depuis longtemps.
57. Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, selon nous, les quatre
conditions énoncées à l’article 30 de la convention contre la torture ont donc toutes été remplies. Il
s’ensuit que la Cour a compétence en vertu de l’ article 30 pour connaître de la partie du différend
qui porte sur l’interprétation ou l’application de la convention.
III. Recevabilité
58. J’examinerai à présent très brièvement la question de la recevabilité. En réalité, on ne
sait pas vraiment si le Sénégal conteste la recevabil ité de la requête. J’ai en effet déjà précisé que
63 les questions relatives aux conditions prévues à l’artic le 30 relèvent de la compétence, et non de la
159Questions d’interprétation et d’application de lavention de Montréal de 1971 résultant de l’incident
aérien de Lockerbie (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne c.Royaume-Uni), exceptions pré liminaires, arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil1998 ,
p. 9, p. 17, par. 20 ; Questions d’interprétation et d’applicala convention de Montréal de 1971 résultant de
l’incident aérien de Lockerbie (Jamahiriya arabe libyennEtats-Unis d’Amérique), excep tions préliminaires, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 122, par. 20. - 57 -
recevabilité. Cela ressort, me semble-t-il, clairement de la jurisprudence de la Cour. Une façon
d’interpréter l’argument exposé aux paragraphes 148 à 162 consiste cependant à dire que, selon le
Sénégal, la Cour devrait exercer son pouvoir discr étionnaire en ne statuant pas en l’espèce parce
que, si elle le faisait, elle rendrait un «jugemdéclaratoire». A l’appui de cet argument, le
Sénégal cite plusieurs fois la Cour mais, à l’exception des affaires de l’Usine de Chorzów ou des
Essais nucléaires, ces citations sont toutes tirées d’avis c onsultatifs, auxquels s’appliquent d’autres
considérations. L’agent de la Be lgique traitera cette question du jugement déclaratoire lorsqu’il
conclura notre premier tour de plaidoiries ; je n’en dirai donc pas plus à ce stade.
59. Il ne nous semble pas que le Sénégal airéellement remis en cause la recevabilité de la
requête, ni qu’il pouvait le faire. Il n’existe en effet aucun motif d’irrecevabilité.
60. Monsieur le président, ainsi s’achève mon exposé sur la compétence en vertu de
l’article 30 de la convention contre la torture et sur la recevabilité.
61. S’il reste du temps, je vous prierais de en vouloir appeler à la barre M.David, qui
traitera brièvement la question de la compétence en vertu de la clause facultative.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, M Wood. I now give the floor again to Professor Eric David. As I
announced this morning, you may avail yourself of a short extension of a maximum of 15 minutes
beyond 1p.m. to complete today’s pleadings by Belgium, in view of the time taken by the public
sitting this morning. You have the floor, Professor.
Mr. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. President and thank you for this dispensation, for granting us
this extra time. Mr. President, Members of the Court,
5.T HE C OURT ’S JURISDICTION UNDER THE OPTIONAL CLAUSE DECLARATIONS
BY BELGIUM AND SENEGAL (ICJ STATUTE , ARTICLE 36,PARAGRAPH 2)
1. In its Application instituting proceedinand its written Memorial, Belgium based the
Court’s jurisdiction not only on Article30 of the Convention against Torture, as Sir Michael has
just recalled, but also on the declarations whereb y Senegal and Belgium have accepted the Court’s
jurisdiction; Senegal since 2 October1985 and Belgium since 3April1958. These declarations,
which are still in force, have barely been touched upon by Senegal since these proceedings began.
Senegal refers to them twice, very much in passi ng, in its Counter-Memorial: firstly when it notes - 58 -
64 that the declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court by Belgium and Senegal apply to
160
legal disputes ; and secondly when it observes that Belg ium bases its action on the Convention
against Torture and on the two optional clause declarations made by the two States under
161
Article36, paragraph2, of the Statute . These are the only times that Senegal alludes to the
declarations, namely a dozen lines which are purely informative in a Counter-Memorial
of 77 pages.
2. This is not the first time that the Court’ s jurisdiction has been based on more than one
source. It happened previously in 1939 in the Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria case,
brought by my country before the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was then led to
conclude that one source of jurisdiction did not necessarily preclude another and that a treaty
recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court, as is the case here, did not prevent declarations of
acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction having the same effect ( Electricity Company of Sofia and
Bulgaria, Judgment, 1939, P.C.I.J., SeriesA/B, No.77 , p.76). More recently, in the case
concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, the Court found that
when seised on the basis of overlapping acceptances of its jurisdiction, that jurisdiction was not
jeopardized by the more restrictive conditions cont ained in a treaty that was otherwise binding on
the parties (Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria),
Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 312, para. 79).
3. In this case, the Court’s jurisdiction based on the declarations of acceptance of that
jurisdiction by Senegal and Belgium does not appear to divide the Parties and, in accordance with
Article60 of the Rules of Court, Belgium can be brief. There nevertheless remains the objection
raised by Senegal regarding the application of Ar ticle 30 of the Convention against Torture, where
Senegal asserts the alleged absence of a dispute with Belgium. That objection could apply to the
declarations whereby the two States have accepte d the Court’s jurisdiction, since in both cases ⎯
the Torture Convention and the declarati ons based on Article 36, paragraph 2 ⎯ the Court’s
jurisdiction does of course presuppose that a disp ute exists (I would refer you to Article38,
paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court).
160
CMS, Vol. I, paras. 126-127.
161
Ibid., para. 185. - 59 -
65 4. We shall begin by describing the content of the declarations of acceptance by Senegal and
Belgium (A.); we shall then give a more in-depth analysis of the conditions for applying these
declarations (B.). Inevitably, this presentation will remain theoretical ⎯ I am sorry if I am
repeating myself ⎯, but Senegal has not developed the application of unilateral declarations in this
case in any way.
A. The content of the declarations by Senegal and Belgium
5. The unilateral declarations of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction by the two States are
very similar. They are reproduced in your folder s at tabs 3.1 and 3.2. They can be summarized as
follows: on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, Senegal and Belgium declare that
they recognize “as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, in relation to any other
State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court over all legal disputes”, disputes
subsequent to 13 July 1948 in the case of Belgiu m and, in the case of Senegal, subsequent to
2 December 1985, the date when it filed its declara tion. Further, it is necessary for the Parties not
to have agreed “to have recourse to some other method of pacific settlement”. Finally, Senegal
does not accept disputes bearing on “questions whic h, under international law, fall exclusively
within [its] jurisdiction”. In other words, if we look at what could be considered an aggregation of
all the limitations that exist in the declarations of acceptance by the two States, we see that they set
out four conditions:
⎯ there must be a legal dispute between the Parties;
⎯ the dispute must have arisen after 2 December 1985;
⎯ there must be no other means of settling the dispute;
⎯ the conflict must not fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of Senegal.
If it pleases the Court, let us now examine in greater detail the four conditions ⎯ which are fully
met in this case ⎯ for applying these declarations.
B. The conditions for applying the declarations
1. The existence of a legal dispute
6. This is the only point that Senegal contests. It does so only in relation to Article 30 of the
Convention against Torture, but its reasoning could be transposed to the dispute referred to in the - 60 -
66 declarations of acceptance by the two States. In substance, Senegal puts forward three arguments
that can be summarized as follows:
(1)Senegal and Belgium interpret the 1984 Convention in the same way: therefore, there is no
dispute. Senegal writes:
“At no time have the Parties in question held opposing views about the meaning
or scope of their central obligation, to ‘prosecute or extradite’. There is nothing in the
arguments put forward by Belgium to cont radict Senegal’s interpretation of the
Convention.” 162
(2) It is not sufficient to assert that there is a disput e in order for such a dispute to exist, as the case
law of the Court shows 163.
(3)Belgium is allegedly seeking to obtain a declaratory judgment from the Court, whereas the
164
Court, according to Senegal, refuses to render such judgments .
7. Senegal has used these three arguments to contest the Court’s jurisdiction solely under the
1984 Convention. It did not explicitly extend th e scope of the objection to the two unilateral
declarations. Senegal merely states that “[t]he concept of ‘dispute’ also appears in the Declarations
165
Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court submitted by the two States” .
Mr. President, Members of the Court, if this is a way of suggesting that the same arguments would
lead to the same effects in the case of jurisdic tion based on the two declarations, SirMichael’s
replies to that objection can be tr ansposed, almost word for word, to an argument that consists in
rejecting the declarations of acceptance by the two States on the basis of the alleged absence of a
dispute.
8. Belgium would merely like to observe that it welcomes Senegal’s clear affirmation that
HissèneHabré must be tried or extradited. Ever ybody agrees on that, but the fact that everyone
agrees on that point does not settle the dispute, because this is not a semantic dispute. As the Agent
of Belgium, Mr.Rietjens, and the Co-Agent, Mr.Dive, said this morning: the dispute is material
and concrete. Belgium is not asking Senegal to utter the words, to say that Mr. Habré must be tried
16CMS, Vol. I, para. 135.
163
Ibid., paras. 128-137.
16Ibid., paras. 139-162.
16Ibid., para. 126. - 61 -
67 or extradited; Belgium is asking Senegal to translate those words into action and to actually try or
extradite Mr. Habré. Yes, Senegal has placed Mr. Habré under house arrest and appointed four
judges to open an investigation against Mr. Habr é, but placing a person suspected of crimes under
house arrest and appointing judges to open an investigation ⎯ an investigation that has yet to
166
start ⎯ does not constitute effective prosecution or extradition, which is the real object of
Belgium’s Application before this Court.
9. Sir Michael showed that the dispute has arisen from the fact that Senegal has neither
prosecuted nor extradited Mr. Habré for the crime of torture. I shall simply add that the dispute
also stems from the fact that Senegal has neither prosecuted nor extradited Mr. Habré for ⎯ under
the terms of the arrest warrant issued against him ⎯ crimes against humanity, war crimes and the
crime of genocide.
10. Therefore a dispute does indeed exist si nce, on the one hand, Belgium considers that
Senegal has not fulfilled its obligations and, on the other, Senegal maintains that it has done so:
167
⎯ firstly, by amending its legislation ;
⎯ secondly, by stating that to prosecute or ex tradite is “a peremptory requirement for all
168
States” : Belgium accepts that Senegal recognizes that it must fulfil its legal obligation to
prosecute Mr. Habré or, failing that, to extradite him;
⎯ finally, by simply “ensur[ing] that all the n ecessary conditions, in particular the financial
conditions, were met so that the tria l could take place reasonably quickly” 169: speaking of
“reasonably quickly”, the first complaints were filed against Mr.Habré in 2000 and it is now
2012.
11. In Belgium’s view, the nature of the dispute will change when Senegal brings Mr. Habré
to trial or extradites him to Belgium. As Senegal has done neither of these things, there is indeed a
conflict of views between what Belgium consider s to be a means of fulfilling the obligation
166Cf. ICC, ICC-01/09-01/11-1, 8 March 2011, Ruto et al., paras. 64-70.
167
CMS, Vol. I, paras. 146, 167-173.
168
Ibid., para. 159.
169Ibid., para. 175. - 62 -
68 incumbent upon Senegal under general international law and what Senegal is not doing. The
dispute therefore continues to exist in its entirety.
12. Lastly, this is a legal dispute since it concerns the application of a rule of law ⎯ to
prosecute if not extradite ⎯ under general international law for war crimes, crimes against
humanity and crimes of genocide. Maintaining that there is no dispute is tantamount to denying a
blinding reality.
13. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I shall be very brief in respect of the other
conditions for applying the declarations recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction.
2. The dispute is subsequent to 2 December 1985
14. Both declarations of acceptance of the [Court’s] jurisdiction set a ratione temporis
limitation: 13 July 1948 for Belgium and 2 Dece mber 1985 for Senegal, as we have just seen. In
this case, the dispute crystallized when it became apparent that Senegal would not extradite
Mr. Habré to Belgium and that it would also not pr osecute him. Belgium was unable to obtain the
extradition of Hissène Habré in November 2005 and Se negal has not brought him to justice either.
As the Court said recently in the Jurisdictional Immunities case, “the dispute undoubtedly relates to
‘facts or situations’ occurring entirely” ( Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy:
Greece intervening), I.C.J., Judgment of 3February 2012, p.20, para.44) after the two dates of
application of the declarations in question ⎯ 1948 and 1985: the ratione temporis condition has
therefore been met.
3. There is no other method of settling the dispute
15. The two declarations of acceptance exclude, in like manner, the jurisdiction of the Court
if the Parties have agreed to have recourse to a method of pacific settlement other than through the
Court. Since the Parties have not agreed to se ttle their dispute in respect of the obligation to
prosecute Hissène Habré or, failing that, to extradite him by any method other than recourse to the
International Court of Justice, that condition has also been met. - 63 -
4. The conflict does not fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of Sen
egal
69
16. Quite rightly, Senegal has never claimed that the aut dedere aut judicare rule was
exclusively an internal affair, since it is an issue that is typical of international law: has Senegal
fulfilled its obligations under genera l international law or not? Since this issue does indeed relate
to the application of a rule of international law, it does not concern the internal affairs of
170
Senegal . The fourth condition has thus also been fully satisfied.
17. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is therefore clear that the declarations
recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court by Sene gal and Belgium give the Court jurisdiction to
adjudicate all aspects of this dispute.
That concludes my presentation and the precedi ng ones. While at the end of the day the
legal issues are fairly straightforward, the abunda nce of facts tends at times to make them seem
complex ⎯ as you have most certainly realized. But the Court will also be quick to realize that this
is merely an impression. As one author had it: “Simplicity does not precede complexity, but
follows it.”171
Mr. President, Members of the Court, Belgium in any case thanks you for listening so
patiently to its oral statements throughout this long morning.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor. That concludes Belgium’s oral argument for
today. The Court will meet again tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. The sitting is closed.
The Court rose at 1.20 p.m.
___________
170
Cf. P.C.I.J., Nationality Decrees Issued in Tuniand Morocco, Advisory Opinion of 7 February 1923,
Series B, No. 4, pp. 24-26.
17Alan J. Perlis, “Epigrams on Programming”, SIGPLAN Notices, 1982, No. 9, p. 8.
Translation