Assembly/AU/11 (XIII)
Annex II
Page 12
Sierra Leone (an international court73). Rwanda, alongside its prosecution of
higher-ranking suspects, has pursued a traditional form of alternative justice
through its gacaca courts,74 and the Annexure to what is known as the Juba
Agreement provides that traditional justice mechanisms shall form a central part
of the alternative justice and reconciliation framework in Uganda.75 Finally,
certain African states have complemented their formal or alternative exercises of
national criminal jurisdiction by requesting the establishment of ad hoc
international criminal courts and tribunals for the prosecution of serious crimes of
international concern committed on their territory,76 and/or by becoming parties to
the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC),77 and/or by referring to the
ICC situations within their respective territories involving the suspected
commission of serious crimes of international concern.78 All these measures,
aimed at combating impunity for such crimes, represent alternatives to the
exercise of universal jurisdiction.
21.
It should also be noted that, in its recent decision on the principle of universal
jurisdiction, the AU Assembly requested ‘the African Union Commission, in
consultation with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to examine the implications of the
Court being empowered to try international crimes such as genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes and report thereon to the Assembly in 2010.’79
II.2
European Union: Outline of National Law and Practice of Member States
regarding Universal Jurisdiction
22.
Certain EU Member States provide for the exercise of universal jurisdiction in
criminal matters only where such exercise is envisaged or rendered mandatory by
international treaties to which the relevant state is party. An example of such a
73
See below, section III.1.
The gacaca courts are a community-based justice mechanism modelled on local dispute-resolution traditions. The system,
instituted in 2001, requires the accused to face his or her victims, to confess and to seek forgiveness.
75
See Annexure to the Juba Agreement, articles 19 to 22.
76
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was established after a request by the then-new Rwandan government to this
effect, and the creation of the Special Court for Sierra Leone was a direct response to an approach made to the UN by the
government of Sierra Leone.
77
AU Member States comprise the largest regional bloc of states to become parties to the Statute of the ICC. The current African
states parties to the Statute comprise Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Republic
of Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Comoros, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho,
Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda
and Zambia.
78
In December 2003, Uganda referred the situation concerning the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda (subsequently renamed the
situation concerning northern Uganda); in April 2004, the Democratic Republic of the Congo referred the situation of crimes
within the jurisdiction of the Court committed anywhere in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1 July
2002; and in January 2005, the Central African Republic referred the situation of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
committed anywhere on the territory of the Central African Republic since 1 July 2002. African states remain to date the only
states to have referred situations to the Court. Additionally, in February 2005, Côte d’Ivoire became the first non-state party to
accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court under article 12(3) of the Statute, in its case with respect to crimes committed on
its territory since 19 September 2002.
79
Decision Assembly/AU/Dec. 213(XII), 4 February 2009.
74
Version 31 March 09(FINAL)