Role Of International Treaties In Criminal Prosecutions
ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
International treaties are legally binding agreements between states that facilitate cooperation in criminal justice across borders. They are crucial in areas like extradition, mutual legal assistance, war crimes, terrorism, corruption, human trafficking, and transnational organized crime.
By codifying states’ obligations, treaties help overcome jurisdictional barriers, ensure uniformity, and uphold human rights standards.
1. KEY FUNCTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
Extradition and Surrender
Treaties define conditions, offenses covered, dual criminality, specialty principle, and procedures for surrendering accused persons.
Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA)
Facilitate sharing of evidence, documents, and bank records.
Reduce obstacles of domestic legal procedures in cross-border cases.
Establishing Universal or Regional Jurisdiction
Treaties criminalize acts like genocide, torture, piracy, war crimes universally (e.g., Geneva Conventions).
Standardization of Offenses and Penalties
Ensure common understanding of terrorism, money laundering, trafficking, and corruption.
Facilitating International Tribunals
Treaties provide the legal basis for ad hoc tribunals and permanent courts (e.g., ICTY, ICC).
2. MAJOR INTERNATIONAL TREATIES IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
| Treaty | Purpose | Key Provisions |
|---|---|---|
| UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000) | Combat organized crime globally | Criminalization of participation, laundering, corruption; MLA & extradition |
| UN Convention against Corruption (2003) | Fight corruption | Criminalize bribery, asset recovery, whistleblower protection |
| Geneva Conventions & Additional Protocols | War crimes & humanitarian law | Prosecutions for crimes against humanity, grave breaches |
| Rome Statute of ICC (1998) | Prosecution of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity | Establishes ICC jurisdiction, complementarity with national courts |
| UN Terrorism Financing Convention (1999) | Counter-terrorism | Criminalize raising, transferring, or providing funds for terrorism |
| Interpol & Europol agreements | International cooperation | Facilitate sharing intelligence and arrest warrants |
3. DETAILED CASE LAW ANALYSIS
Here are six landmark cases demonstrating the role of international treaties:
Case 1: The Eichmann Trial, Israel (1961)
Facts:
Adolf Eichmann, Nazi official, responsible for deportation of Jews during WWII, was captured in Argentina by Israeli agents.
Treaty/Legal Basis:
Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Principles provided basis for prosecuting crimes against humanity.
Held:
Eichmann was tried in Israel for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.
Extradition issues were sidestepped; universal jurisdiction applied.
Importance:
Early example of treaty-inspired universal jurisdiction.
Established precedent for prosecuting international crimes regardless of nationality or location.
Case 2: Prosecutor v. Tadić (ICTY, 1995)
Facts:
Dušan Tadić committed crimes during the Bosnian War.
Treaty/Legal Basis:
ICTY established under UN Security Council Resolution 827, pursuant to Geneva Conventions.
Held:
Tadić convicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Court emphasized extradition and cross-border investigation powers granted by international law.
Importance:
Demonstrates ad hoc tribunal prosecution under UN authority.
Shows treaties facilitate binding legal norms for crimes transcending national borders.
Case 3: Arrest and Prosecution of Radovan Karadžić (ICTY, 2016)
Facts:
Former Bosnian Serb leader charged with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity during the 1990s Balkan conflict.
Treaty/Legal Basis:
UN Security Council Resolutions establishing ICTY; Geneva Conventions and customary international law.
Held:
Convicted on multiple counts; sentenced to life imprisonment.
Extradition from hiding in Serbia involved cooperation under treaty obligations.
Importance:
Highlights treaty-based mechanisms in international capture, surrender, and trial.
Shows effective enforcement of universal human rights obligations.
Case 4: United States v. Noriega (1991–1992)
Facts:
Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega charged with drug trafficking in the U.S.
Treaty/Legal Basis:
U.S.–Panama extradition treaty and UN drug conventions (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961).
Held:
Noriega was extradited and tried in U.S. federal court.
Demonstrates application of extradition treaties and international cooperation in prosecuting transnational crime.
Importance:
Shows treaties facilitate cross-border criminal accountability.
Combines national courts with international treaty obligations.
Case 5: United States v. El-Mezain (Holy Land Foundation, 2008)
Facts:
Fundraising in U.S. suspected of financing Hamas.
Treaty/Legal Basis:
UN International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism (1999).
Mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) with Middle Eastern countries provided bank and financial records.
Held:
Convictions for providing material support to terrorists.
Prosecution relied on cross-border evidence sharing enabled by treaties.
Importance:
Shows MLA treaties in terrorism financing prosecutions.
Highlights international treaty framework complementing domestic law.
Case 6: Kenya – ICC Prosecutor v. Uhuru Kenyatta / William Ruto (Post-2007–2008)
Facts:
Leaders accused of inciting post-election violence in Kenya.
Treaty/Legal Basis:
Rome Statute of ICC; Kenya ratified ICC treaty.
Held:
ICC prosecution relied on complementarity principle: national courts failing to prosecute adequately trigger ICC jurisdiction.
Importance:
Shows Rome Statute enabling prosecution when domestic systems fail.
Treaty ensures binding international criminal norms are enforced.
Case 7: Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor (Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2012)
Facts:
Charles Taylor, former Liberian president, charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity during Sierra Leone civil war.
Treaty/Legal Basis:
UN Security Council Resolution 1315 established the Special Court; Geneva Conventions provided substantive law.
Held:
Convicted and sentenced to 50 years.
Extradition from Nigeria involved interstate treaty cooperation.
Importance:
Illustrates international treaties creating hybrid tribunals for accountability.
Highlights treaty-enabled extradition and evidence sharing.
4. COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONS
| Aspect | Examples | Observations |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Jurisdiction | Eichmann, Tadić | Crimes against humanity can be prosecuted anywhere under treaties. |
| Extradition | Noriega, Taylor | Treaties enable surrender of fugitives for prosecution in requesting states. |
| Terrorism Financing | El-Mezain | MLA treaties facilitate evidence gathering across borders. |
| War Crimes / ICC | Karadžić, Uhuru Kenyatta | Rome Statute complements domestic jurisdiction; treaties provide legal basis. |
| Human Rights Compliance | Eichmann, Karadžić | Treaties incorporate human-rights obligations in prosecution. |
5. KEY TAKEAWAYS
International treaties enhance prosecution of transnational crimes by defining obligations, procedures, and cooperation mechanisms.
Extradition, MLA, and treaty-based tribunals are critical tools for states to bring offenders to justice.
Treaties ensure consistency of international norms for crimes like terrorism, genocide, war crimes, and corruption.
Case law demonstrates cross-border application, corporate and individual liability, and complementarity with domestic law.
Modern criminal prosecutions increasingly rely on treaty obligations to overcome jurisdictional gaps and enforce international justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments