Arrest Warrant Case Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium

ARREST WARRANT CASE
Name
Course
Professor’s Name
Arrest Warrant Case (Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) V Belgium)
Outline
Introduction – It is the part of the paper that gives a brief overview of the case between DRC and Belgium. It provides timelines of the happenings and introduces the parties involved in the case.
Facts of the Case – It is the part of the paper that gives justifications, arguments and facts on which the case was based. It analyzes and discusses the case in details, all arguments made and on what basis they were made.
Issue of the Case – It is the part of the paper that brings out the issues of the case. It brings out the questions that the court was faced with when making a judgment on this case with regard to the parties involved.
Decision of the court – It is the part of the paper that gives an overview of the case presented before the court. Discussed in this part is the decision in which the court reached after hearing the case.
Reasoning on the Decision – It is the part that discusses the judgment in detail. It bases the decisions of the court on legal rules. It explains why decisions were made the way they were made.
Conclusion – As the last part of the paper it gives a brief overview of the case, arguments made and decisions made and their justification.
 
Introduction
The case is on an arrest warrant that was issued by Belgium on the arrest of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of DRC. The case was filed on October 17 of 2000 DRC filed an application that instituted proceedings against Belgium in concern to an international arrest warrant issued against the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Abdoulaye Yerodia Ndombasi by a Belgian judge. The arrest warrant was issued on April 11, 2000. Mr. Ndombasi was being accused of grave violations of international humanitarian law. The arrest warrant seeking his arrest and that he extradited to Belgium where he was to be prosecuted. The arrest warrant was transmitted to all states with DRC receiving it on 12th July 2000.
Upon receiving the warrant, DRC filed a proceeding against the warrant. The case is in reference to the case filed by DRC in the bid to immediately discharge the disputed arrest warrant. The Application was filed with regard to the international law that gives immunity to Ministers of Foreign Affairs from all countries. The International Law gives immunity against any criminal prosecution of Foreign Affairs Ministers so as to make sure that they are able to freely serve the country which they represent.
The case is of great significance in that it is on a very sensitive matter of jurisdictions and immunity against criminal prosecutions of various office holders with regard to the international law. The case brought to light a gap that existed in the International Law where there was no law that states that Ministers of Foreign Affairs who were suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity could be treated as an exemption of this law under any customary international law.[Garrod, Matthew. "Unraveling the Confused Relationship between Treaty Obligations to Extradite or Prosecute and Universal Jurisdiction in the Light of the Habre Case." Harv. Int'l LJ 59 (2018).]
Facts of the Case
Mr. Ndombasi was suspected of having committed a grave violation of the international humanitarian laws. It was stated that he had incited racial hatred in some of his speeches and this had contributed to the DRC massacre of 1998 which had resulted in the death of hundreds of people. The international humanitarian law in regard to the Geneva Conventions I-IV and the Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I which sought to protect the life of civilians in times of war. The accusations against Mr. Ndombasi were of violation of humanitarian law because his sentiments had contributed to the loss of hundreds of civilian lives.[Rabkin, Jeremy. "After Guantanamo: The War over the Geneva Convention." In The National Interest on International Law and Order, pp. 63-76. Routledge, 2018.]
Belgium in 1993 passed a “law of international jurisdiction” which allowed it to judge people who were accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The law gave Belgium the jurisdiction to convict any person accused of these crimes regardless of where the crime was committed. With this law, Belgium could convict offenders/accused persons regardless of their residence country or nationality. The crimes that are factored in this law are considered as crimes against all hence the accused persons should not be protected by the sovereignty of any single state or any jurisdictional arbitrage. It is with regard to this law that the Belgian judge gave an arrest warrant against Mr. Ndombasi.
The international law gives immunization to ministers of Foreign Affairs from all states from any prosecution for criminal offenses. The states that they cannot be arrested or convicted of crimes that were committed prior to their entry into office and during the time they are in office. The law was made so as to ensure that the ministers are able to perform their responsibility which is to serve the people of the country they represent. It is with regard to this law that DRC applied for a proceeding seeking to discharge the arrest warrant that was released by Belgium against their Minister of Foreign Affairs.
DRC argued that Belgium had no jurisdiction to arrest the minister since he was protected by international law like the Foreign Affairs Minister. DRC filed for proceedings against Belgium for the release of the warrant claiming that what Belgium was in violation to the international law which protected Ministers of Foreign Affairs from arrest and prosecution for crimes committed. DRC also filed a request for the arrest warrant in dispute to be discharged with immediate effect.[Turns, David. "Arrest Warrant of 11 Aprile 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)." Melb. J. Int'l L. 3 (2002): 383.]
Belgium called for the request to be rejected arguing that the cases against humanity were within the universal jurisdiction and an exemption could be made for the Ministers of Foreign Affairs who enjoyed immunity against any form of criminal proceedings against them as stipulated in the international law. Belgium argued that the arrest warrant was in line with the universal jurisdiction law it passed and argued that no form of jurisdictional arbitrage was supposed to stop them from exercising this jurisdiction.
DRC filed the memorials within the prescribed time and Belgium also filed the counter-memorials within the time-limits that are required in such cases. DRC’s submissions at the public hearings made requests for the court to adjudge and declare that Belgium was in violation of the customary international law which concerned the immunity of foreign affairs ministers from any form of criminal processes. DRC wanted Belgium to recall the arrest warrants and to provide reparations for the moral injury that DRC had suffered as a result of the release of the arrest warrants. The argument of DRC was based on the customary international law while that of Belgium was based on jurisdiction, mootness, and admissibility.
In its counter-memorials and public hearings, Belgium argued that in the application of the universal jurisdiction which was solely applicable in cases of great violation of humanitarian law, exemptions could be made on the immunity given to foreign ministers under the customary law. Belgium placed its argument on the admissibility of the case that it had that had propagated the release of the arrest warrant. Belgium argued that the nature of the case weighed more than the jurisdiction set by the international law. Mr. Ndombasi was a war criminal hence according to Belgium the fact that he was the incumbent foreign minister was no reason for his lack of conviction.
The case between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Belgium can be termed as a case of jurisdiction. Belgium was in practice of the universal jurisdiction when they gave the arrest warrant. DRC, however, argued that Belgium had no jurisdiction issuing arrest warrants against their incumbent foreign minister hence sent an application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Belgium, on the other hand, sought for the court to drop the application claiming that the court had no jurisdiction for hearing of the case since the warrant was within the confines of the universal jurisdiction.[Turns, David. "Arrest Warrant of 11 Aprile 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)." Melb. J. Int'l L. 3 (2002): 383.]
The court proceeded to hear and rejected the requests made by Belgium. The court was given jurisdiction by the customary international law that gave inviolability and immunity to foreign ministers. Both parties had viable arguments in this case. DRC was seeking the respect of the international law in which Belgium was in violation with the release of the warrant. Belgium, on the other hand, justified the warrant with its universal jurisdiction which gave it jurisdiction to convict those who committed grave crimes against humanity. The court was faced with making a decision on if Belgium had the jurisdiction to release the warrant.[Turns, David. "Arrest Warrant of 11 Aprile 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)." Melb. J. Int'l L. 3 (2002): 383.]
Issue on the Case
The case is based on a gap in international law. The universal jurisdiction allows for the arrest and conviction of those accused of committing grave crimes against humanity without any jurisdictional arbitrage brought about by their nationality, place crime was committed or country of residence. The universal jurisdiction also goes further to put it that no person suspected of these acts should be above the law and nowhere is a safe haven tha...