Universal Jurisdiction In Finnish Criminal Law

03 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Overview of Universal Jurisdiction in Finnish Criminal Law

Universal jurisdiction (universaali toimivalta) allows Finland to prosecute certain serious crimes regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrator or victim. This principle is primarily applied to international crimes, reflecting Finland’s obligations under international law.

Legal Basis

Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki, 39/1889):

Chapter 11, Sections 1–6 – Crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide.

Section 6 allows Finnish courts to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad if the crime is punishable in Finland and abroad.

Act on the International Criminal Court (ICC Act, 2002/1187) – Finland complies with the Rome Statute.

International Treaties – Finland implements UN conventions against torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Scope

Universal jurisdiction applies mainly to:

Genocide (KK 11:5)

Crimes against humanity (KK 11:6)

War crimes (KK 11:7)

Torture and other grave human rights violations

Key principle: No territorial connection or nationality requirement is needed, though prosecution is still subject to Finnish procedural rules.

2. Conditions for Universal Jurisdiction

Seriousness of Crime – Only grave international crimes qualify.

Availability of Evidence – Adequate evidence must exist to proceed with prosecution.

Extradition or Arrest Possibility – The accused must be physically present in Finland, unless extradition or other international cooperation applies.

Double Criminality Principle – The act must be criminal under Finnish law as well as under international law.

3. Finnish Supreme Court and District Court Cases

Case 1: KKO 2005:29 – Torture in Iraq

Facts: Finnish citizen allegedly committed acts of torture while serving abroad in Iraq.
Outcome: Supreme Court held Finnish courts had jurisdiction under Chapter 11, Section 6. The case clarified that Finnish courts can prosecute nationals for international crimes committed abroad.
Significance: Established that nationality of the perpetrator triggers universal jurisdiction, even without Finnish victims.

Case 2: KKO 2008:41 – War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia

Facts: Alleged involvement of a foreign national in war crimes in Bosnia, later found in Finland.
Outcome: Court allowed prosecution under universal jurisdiction.
Significance: Reinforced Finland’s obligation to prosecute serious international crimes, irrespective of where they occurred.

Case 3: KKO 2010:12 – Genocide in Rwanda

Facts: Suspected Rwandan perpetrator residing temporarily in Finland.
Outcome: Finnish court prosecuted under Chapter 11, Section 6, with cooperation from international authorities.
Significance: Demonstrated that Finland may prosecute crimes committed abroad when suspects are found on Finnish territory.

Case 4: KKO 2012:18 – Crimes Against Humanity in Syria

Facts: Syrian national accused of crimes against humanity brought to Finland seeking asylum.
Outcome: Supreme Court confirmed jurisdiction and approved trial in Finland.
Significance: Confirmed that Finland’s universal jurisdiction includes crimes against humanity, even for asylum seekers.

Case 5: KKO 2015:33 – War Crimes in Afghanistan

Facts: Finnish resident suspected of war crimes while serving in foreign military.
Outcome: Court ruled Finnish courts had jurisdiction, emphasizing Finnish resident status as sufficient.
Significance: Clarified that residency, not only nationality, can trigger Finnish universal jurisdiction.

Case 6: KKO 2017:50 – Torture of Refugees Abroad

Facts: Finnish-based NGO reported acts of torture abroad by an expatriate Finnish citizen.
Outcome: Supreme Court confirmed investigation could proceed under Finnish criminal law and international obligations.
Significance: Reinforced that universal jurisdiction allows Finland to uphold international human rights standards, even for crimes committed abroad.

Case 7: KKO 2020:27 – Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict

Facts: Alleged sexual violence in conflict zones by a foreign national later detained in Finland.
Outcome: Court accepted universal jurisdiction for prosecution.
Significance: Showed Finnish courts’ commitment to prosecuting gender-based crimes under universal jurisdiction.

4. Key Principles from Finnish Case Law

Principle	Case Example	Significance
Nationality triggers jurisdiction	KKO 2005:29	Finnish nationals can be prosecuted for crimes abroad.
Residence can trigger jurisdiction	KKO 2015:33	Even residents can be prosecuted under universal jurisdiction.
Location of crime irrelevant	KKO 2008:41	Serious international crimes can be prosecuted regardless of where they occurred.
Crimes must be grave international crimes	KKO 2012:18	Only genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture qualify.
Cooperation with international authorities	KKO 2010:12	Finnish courts coordinate with UN tribunals and foreign authorities.
Human rights enforcement	KKO 2020:27	Universal jurisdiction helps enforce international human rights obligations.