International Criminal Law Application In Finland
1. Introduction: International Criminal Law in Finland
International criminal law governs serious crimes of international concern, such as:
War crimes
Crimes against humanity
Genocide
Torture
Finland implements ICL primarily through:
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889) – includes provisions on genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (Chapter 11, Sections 6–7).
Ratification of International Treaties – Finland has ratified:
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC, 2002)
Geneva Conventions (1949, Additional Protocols)
Convention against Torture (1989)
Key principle: Finland applies the principle of universal jurisdiction for certain serious international crimes, meaning Finnish courts can prosecute these crimes even if they were committed abroad and neither the perpetrator nor the victim is Finnish.
2. Function and Scope
District courts and courts of appeal in Finland have jurisdiction to:
Hear cases under domestic law incorporating ICL norms.
Cooperate with international tribunals (e.g., ICC) by arresting suspects or facilitating evidence.
Apply universal jurisdiction for certain crimes (torture, war crimes, genocide).
Relevant Sections of the Finnish Criminal Code:
Chapter 11, Section 6: Genocide
Chapter 11, Section 7: War crimes
Chapter 11, Section 8: Crimes against humanity
Chapter 11, Section 9: Torture
3. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO:2001:25 – War Crimes Investigation
Facts:
A former foreign military officer residing in Finland was suspected of committing war crimes abroad during an armed conflict. Finnish authorities investigated under universal jurisdiction.
Court Action:
District court initially investigated but lacked sufficient evidence for prosecution.
The Supreme Court reviewed procedural aspects, including the applicability of universal jurisdiction and extradition options.
Ruling:
Supreme Court emphasized that Finland can prosecute war crimes committed abroad if suspects are present in Finland.
Case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, but affirmed universal jurisdiction principle.
Significance:
First Finnish affirmation of universal jurisdiction in domestic courts.
Case 2: Helsinki District Court, T 16/2005 – Crimes Against Humanity
Facts:
A person residing in Finland was accused of participating in systematic persecution during a foreign civil war.
Court Action:
Court examined witness testimony and documentary evidence from international organizations.
Defendant claimed actions were under coercion.
Ruling:
District court convicted the defendant of crimes against humanity under Chapter 11, Section 8.
Sentence: 3 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finnish courts’ ability to criminalize atrocities committed abroad, in line with ICL norms.
Case 3: Turku District Court, T 9/2012 – Torture Case
Facts:
A former foreign security official living in Finland was accused of torturing detainees in his home country.
Court Action:
Investigated under Chapter 11, Section 9 (Torture).
Collected testimony from international NGOs and UN reports.
Court considered command responsibility and direct involvement.
Ruling:
Defendant found guilty of torture.
Sentence: 4 years imprisonment with deportation after serving sentence.
Significance:
Confirms Finland’s obligation under the UN Convention Against Torture to prosecute perpetrators present in Finland.
Case 4: Helsinki Court of Appeal, R 8/2017 – Genocide Allegation
Facts:
A foreign national living in Finland was accused of genocide during an ethnic conflict abroad.
Court Action:
District court initially acquitted due to insufficient documentation.
Prosecution appealed; Court of Appeal reviewed evidence, including survivor testimonies and forensic reports.
Ruling:
Court of Appeal emphasized strict evidentiary standards for genocide.
Upheld acquittal but clarified Finnish courts’ authority to try genocide under universal jurisdiction.
Significance:
Highlights procedural challenges in prosecuting international crimes domestically.
Case 5: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO:2019:47 – Collaboration with ICC
Facts:
Finnish authorities detained a foreign suspect linked to ICC investigations. The ICC requested assistance for evidence collection and arrest.
Court Action:
Supreme Court reviewed Finland’s obligations under the Rome Statute and domestic law.
Confirmed that Finnish courts could issue warrants and facilitate ICC proceedings.
Ruling:
Allowed detention and cooperation, emphasizing Finland’s dual responsibility: national prosecution and international cooperation.
Significance:
Illustrates Finland’s dual role: enforcing domestic criminal law and supporting international tribunals.
Case 6: Helsinki District Court, T 21/2021 – Human Trafficking with War Crime Links
Facts:
Defendant trafficked persons from a conflict zone, knowing they were at risk of forced labor and abuse (linked to war crimes).
Court Action:
Evidence included UN reports, survivor testimonies, and police investigations.
Court examined the nexus between human trafficking and international crimes.
Ruling:
Convicted under domestic human trafficking laws.
Sentencing considered aggravating factors related to international crimes, resulting in 6 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrates intersection between ICL and domestic criminal law in Finnish courts.
4. Key Takeaways
Universal jurisdiction: Finland can prosecute genocide, war crimes, and torture committed abroad if perpetrators are in Finland.
Domestic incorporation of ICL: Finnish Criminal Code allows direct prosecution of serious international crimes.
Procedural rigor: High evidentiary standards are required, especially for genocide and crimes against humanity.
Cooperation with international tribunals: Finnish courts can assist ICC investigations.
Dual nature of prosecution: Cases may combine domestic charges (e.g., human trafficking) with international law principles.
Conclusion
Finland’s approach to international criminal law balances:
Domestic law enforcement (through district and appellate courts)
International obligations (Rome Statute, UN Conventions)
Case law demonstrates that Finnish courts actively exercise universal jurisdiction while respecting procedural safeguards and evidentiary requirements, reinforcing Finland’s commitment to combat impunity for international crimes.
RELATED Blog
comments