Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies pp 317–333Cite as

Applying the Laws of Armed Conflict in Swiss Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 824 Accesses

Abstract

With the entry into force, on 1st January 2011, of the amended Criminal Code (CC) and Military Criminal Code (MCC), and the new Criminal Procedure Code (CrimPC), which is now uniformly applicable at both federal and cantonal level, Switzerland has equipped itself with more efficient tools for the implementation of the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and the fight against impunity for their violations. At the same time, the Swiss juridical world has already been acquainted with some cases involving application of the LOAC, having reached its gates. The purpose of this chapter is to map these developments in the Swiss legal landscape as well as mark some landmark cases that have highlighted application of IHL in the Swiss domestic jurisdiction, in particular the “G Case” and the “Niyonteze case”.

Roberta Arnold, PhD (Bern, hons), LLM (Nottingham), is attorney. Researcher at the Military Academy at ETH Zurich, Switzerland and investigating military magistrate within the Swiss Military Justice (specialist officer). The views expressed here are the author’s only and do not necessarily represent those of her employer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Arnold 2011, p. 1 et seq.

  2. 2.

    Niyonteze Case, MAT Judgment,  p. 45; MCC Judgment, p. 30; G case, Judgement of the Divisional Military Tribunal I, 14–18 April 1997; Arnold 2005, p. 764.

  3. 3.

    The basis was Article 109 oMCC.

  4. 4.

    The ICC Statute was ratified on 12th October 2001 and entered into force in Switzerland on 1st July 2002.

  5. 5.

    Articles 23(1)(g) and 25 CrimPC. Pursuant to the CrimPC, all cases, including those pending on 1st January 2011, must be prosecuted by the OAG. The first competent judicial instance is the Federal Criminal Court, whose judgments may be appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

  6. 6.

    Article 2 et seq MCC; Appendix to the Message on the modification of federal laws for the implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 23rd April 2008, BBl 2008 3863, at 3971.

  7. 7.

    Swiss Military Criminal Code of 13th June 1927 (MCC), with the amendments introduced on 1st January 2011.

  8. 8.

    Swiss Criminal Code of 21st December 1937 (CC).

  9. 9.

    Van Wijnkoop 2009, p. 8 et seq; Federal law on the modification of the Military Criminal Code, BBl 1967 I 587.

  10. 10.

    Articles 264b–264j CC; Articles 111–112d and Article 114 MCC.

  11. 11.

    Articles 264a CC and 109 MCC. Crimes against humanity were introduced for the first time into Swiss legislation, with these provisions.

  12. 12.

    Federal Law of 18th June 2010 on the modification of federal laws for the implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (BBl 2010 4277); Message on the modification of the federal laws for the implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 23rd April 2008 (BBl 2008 3863). For the legislative history see Arnold 2011, p. 6.

  13. 13.

    Jurius, ‘Guerres et genocides: le Conseil des Etats prône un arsenal pénal encore plus sevère’, Jusletter (22 March 2010); Trial Watch, Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes: Switzerland to Have a New Law—But with Limited Application (19 March 2010).

  14. 14.

    Article 264 CC; Article 108 MCC.

  15. 15.

    Article 111 et seq CC.

  16. 16.

    Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: consultation procedure launched, 26th June 2013; Message of the Federal Council of 19.02.2014 (FF 2014 1973).

  17. 17.

    Méttraux 2009, p. 18 et seq; 37, 54–56, 58, 69; Arnold 2013, FN 16; Triffterer 2008, Commentary to Article 28, N 81; Prosecutor v. Oric, TJ, §§ 293, 724.

  18. 18.

    Arnold and Wehrenberg 2014 (forthcoming).

  19. 19.

    BBl 2008, 3895, p. 3954; Fiolka 2013b, p. 2274 et seq.

  20. 20.

    BBl 2008, 3895 et seq.

  21. 21.

    Fiolka and Zehnder 2013, p. 2158, N 33 et seq.

  22. 22.

    Fiolka and Zehnder 2013, N 12, p. 2142.

  23. 23.

    Fiolka and Zehnder 2013, p. 2157, N 29.

  24. 24.

    Even though the unofficial English version of the provision is entitled as ‘serious violations’. Article 2 ICTY Statute clearly refers to grave breaches, whereas Article 3 ICTY Statute refers to serious violations. The wording of the Swiss CC, thus, is somewhat misleading. Article 264c CC on serious violations actually means the grave breaches, whereas Article 264d CC on ‘serious violations’ actually means other serious violations of the laws of armed conflict.

  25. 25.

    On 26th June 2013 the Federal Council launched a consultation procedure on its ratification. See ‘Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: consultation procedure launched’, Bern, 26.6.2013, at http://www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=49423.

  26. 26.

    Wehrenberg and Ehlert 2013, p. 2116, N 2.

  27. 27.

    BBl 2008, 3895 et seq, p. 3920, with reference to the ICTR and ICTY jurisprudence.

  28. 28.

    BBl 2008, 3895 et seq, p. 3921.

  29. 29.

    Wehrenberg and Ehlert 2013, p. 2118, N 10.

  30. 30.

    BBl 2008, 3895 et seq, p. 3922.

  31. 31.

    BBl 2008, 3895 et seq, pp. 3923–3932.

  32. 32.

    Judgment of the Military Appeal Court 1A, 26th May 2000, pp. 28–29.

  33. 33.

    Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9th December 1948.

  34. 34.

    Bundesgesetz über die Änderung von Bundesgesetzen zur Umsetzung des Römer Statuts des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs vom 18. Juni 2010, BBl 2010 4277. Wehrenberg/BS/Vor Articles 264–264m, p. 2086 et seq, N 6 et seq.

  35. 35.

    Wehrenberg/BS/Article 264, p. 2095, N 29.

  36. 36.

    Wehrenberg/BS/Article 264, pp. 2096–2097, N 34–35.

  37. 37.

    Fiolka 2013a, p. 1926, N 5.

  38. 38.

    Fiolka 2013a, p. 1931, N 27.

  39. 39.

    BBl 2008, 3895 et seq, p. 3958.

  40. 40.

    Article 10 (1bis, 1ter and 1quater MCC).

  41. 41.

    Articles 3, 5, 7, 220 and 221a MCC.

  42. 42.

    BBl 2008 3863, p. 3961.

  43. 43.

    G case. In: Ziegler 1998, p. 431; Arnold 2005, p. 764.

  44. 44.

    Ziegler 1998.

  45. 45.

    In particular breaches of the III and IV GC of 1949 and of the Additional Protocols of 1977. The main charge was for the beating up, in July 1992, of at least six detainees of the Omarska prison camp and the causing of several wounds to two of them. G was also charged with the alleged participation, jointly with two uniformed individuals, in the beating up of prisoners, and the alleged attempt to the dignity of several inmates of Keraterm prison camp, in particular by forcing one of them to lick the shoes of one of the guards. G Case, supra, at 3.

  46. 46.

    G case. In: Ziegler 1998, p. 438 (“en droit”).

  47. 47.

    G case. In: Ziegler 1998, p. 439 (“en droit”): “Le doute doit profiter à l’accusé et il sera dont acquitté de tous les chefs d’accusation”.

  48. 48.

    G Case, p. 4 (“Dommages intérêts et tort moral”) (in the original version).

  49. 49.

    G Case, Decision of the Military Court of Cassation, 5.9.1997, p. 2.

  50. 50.

    Niyonteze Case, Jugement du Tribunal militaire d'appel 1A, 26.5.2000, p. 45; Arrêt du Tribunal militaire de cassation, 27.4.2001, p. 30; Arnold 2005, JICJ, p. 764 ; Roth and Henzelin 1998, p. 84 et seq ; Reydams 2002, p. 231 et seq; Ziegler 1997, Revue p. 576 et seq ; Sassoli and Bouvier 1999, pp. 1255–1263 ; Sassoli 2002, p. 151 ; Roth and Henzelin 1998, p. 223.

  51. 51.

    For a commentary see Ziegler 2002, p. 215.

  52. 52.

    Judgment of the Military Court of Cassation of 27th April 2001, p. 5 et seq of the original document.

  53. 53.

    Judgment of the MAT, original version, p. 28: “Le Tribunal d'appel considère que l'art 109 CPM énonce une clause générale réprimant non seulement les violations des conventions internationales signées et ratifiées par la Suisse, mais aussi les violations des normes coutumières reconnues par la communauté internationale (cf. Message du Conseil fédéral concernant une révision partielle du code pénal militaire du 6 mars 1967, publié à la Feuille fédérale 1967 I 605 et seq, 610 et 612). (unofficial) English translation: The Appeals Tribunal considers that Article 109 MCC states a general clause repressing not only violations of international conventions signed and ratified by Switzerland, but also violations of customary norms recognised by the international community.”

  54. 54.

    Article 108 oMCC: 1 Les dispositions de ce chapitre sont applicables en cas de guerres déclarées et d’autres conflits armés entre deux ou plusieurs Etats; à ces conflits sont assimilés les atteintes à la neutralité, ainsi que le recours à la force pour repousser de telles atteintes. 2 La violation d’accords internationaux est aussi punissable si les accords prévoient un champ d’application plus étendu. (unofficial) English translation: 1 The provisions of this chapter are applicable in the event of a declared war and other armed conflicts between two or more States; attacks against neutrality, as well as the use of force in order to counteract such attacks, are associated to these conflicts. 2 The violation of international conventions is also punishable, if such conventions provide for a wider scope of application.

  55. 55.

    Judgment of the MAT, original version, p. 29.

  56. 56.

    Judgment of the MAT, original version, p. 25.

  57. 57.

    Bonafé 2007, p. 612 et seq; Meloni 2007, pp. 620–621.

  58. 58.

    Prosecutor v. Oric, TJ, §§ 293, 724. On the issue of cumulative convictions for individual and superior responsibility, see § 339 et seq.

  59. 59.

    Decision of the Military Divisional Tribunal 2 of 26th August 1999, Chapter 4, C. Violation des devoirs du bourgmestre, reprinted in Ziegler et al., p. 328: “En effet, d’une part, les manquements sont absorbés par le comportement actif retenu à la charge de l’accusé en rapport avec la réunion du Mont Mushubati et le camp de Kabgayi et, d’autre part, ils ne sont sanctionnés par aucune norme légale applicable.” (unofficial) English translation: “in fact, on the one hand, the omissions are absorbed by the active behaviour charged against the accused in relation to the meeting held at Mount Mushubati and at camp Kabgayi and, on the other hand, they are not sanctioned by any applicable legal provision.”

  60. 60.

    Decision of the MCC, p. 51.

  61. 61.

    Arnold 2005, JICJ, p. 764.

  62. 62.

    A.X. contre Service de la population et des migrants du canton de Fribourg, et Tribunal administratif du canton de Fribourg (A.X. Against the immigration service of Canton Fribourg, cantonal administrative tribunal of Fribourg), judgment of 11th September 2006, 2nd Court of Public Law of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, case no. 2A.328/2006, available online at http://competenceuniverselle.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/niyonteze-tribunal-fc3a9dc3a9ral-11-septembre-2006.pdf (in French).

References

  • Arnold R (2005) Military criminal procedures and judicial guarantees: the example of Switzerland. J Int Crim Justice 3(3):749 (cited as Arnold JICJ)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold R (2011) Correspondent’s report for Switzerland. Yearb Int Humanit Law 14:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold R (2013) Book Review of Maria Nybondas’ ‘Command responsibility and its applicability to civilian superiors’. J Int Crim Justice 11(4):943 (cited as Arnold–Nybondas)

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold R, Wehrenberg S (2014: forthcoming) Die Strafbarkeit des Vorgesetzten nach Art. 264k StGB, [The criminal responsibility of the superior under Art. 264K of the Swiss criminal code]. The Military Law and Law of War Review

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonafé B (2007) Finding a proper role for command responsibility. J Int Crim Justice 5:599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiolka G (2013a) Kommentar zu Article 259. In: Niggli MA, Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar zum StGB, Vol. II, 3rd edn. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 1923–1932

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiolka G (2013b) Kommentar zu Article 264 k. In: Niggli MA, Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar zum StGB, Vol. II, 3rd ed. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 2245–2264

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiolka G, Zehnder B (2013) Kommentar zu Article 264b-j. In: Niggli MA, Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar zum StGB, Vol. II, 3rd edn. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 2139–2160

    Google Scholar 

  • Meloni C (2007) Mode of liability for the crimes of subordinates or separate offence of the superior? J Int Crim Justice 5:619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Méttraux G (2009) The law of command responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reydams L (2002) International decisions, Nyionteze v Public prosecutor. AJIL 96:231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth R, Henzelin M (1998) La répression des violations du droit international humanitaire en Suisse. In: Pellandini C (ed) Répression nationale des violations du droit international humanitaire (systèmes romano-germaniques): rapport de la réunion d’experts, 23–25 September 1997. ICRC, Geneva, pp 84–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoli M, Bouvier A (1999) How does law protect in war?. Int Comm Red Cross, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassoli M (2002) Le génocide rwandais, la justice militaire suisse et le droit international. Rev Suisse de Droit Int et Eur 2:151

    Google Scholar 

  • Triffterer O. (2008) Commentary to Article 28 ICC Statute. In: Triffterer O (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wijnkoop J (2009) Das Engagement der Schweiz—Grundlagen und erste Schritte. In: Ziegler A et al (ed) Procès de criminels de guerre en Suisse. Schulthess, Zurich, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehrenberg S, Ehlert C (2013) Kommentar zu Article 264a StGB, In: Niggli MA, Wiprächtiger H (eds) Basler Kommentar zum StGB, Vol. II, 3rd edn. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 2112–2137

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler A (1997) Domestic prosecution and international cooperation with regard to violations of international humanitarian law: the case of Switzerland. Rev Suisse de Droit Int et Eur 5:561

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler A (1998) International Decision in Re G. Military Tribunal, Division 1, Lausanne, Switzerland, April 18, 1997. AJIL 92:78

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler A (2002) Militärkassationsgericht, Entscheid vom 27.4.2001. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 215

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Military Academy, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Roberta Arnold

Authors
  1. Roberta Arnold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberta Arnold .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA

    Derek Jinks

  2. Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, Lancashire, United Kingdom

    Jackson N. Maogoto

  3. Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

    Solon Solomon

Appendices

Appendix: Documentation

1.1 Military Legislation (Service Regulations)

  • Regulations nr. 51.007.04 “Legal bases for conduct during an engagement” of 1st July 2005 (Rechtliche Grundlagen für das Verhalten im Einsatz) (cited as RVE)

  • Regulations nr. 51.7/II d on the Laws and Customs of War (Regl. Nr. 51.7/II d Gesetze und Gebräuche des Krieges)

  • Booklet nr. 51.7/III on the Laws and Customs of War (Lehrschrift 51.7/III d f i “Gesetze und Gebräuche des Krieges”

  • Pocket card nr. 51.7/IV d on the principles of the laws of armed conflict for the commander (Merkblatt 51.7/IV d “Kriegsvölkerrechtliche Grundsätze für den Kommandanten”)

  • Regulations nr. 52.11 on the interrogation of prisoners of war (Regl. 52.11 d “Kriegsgefangenenbefragung”).

1.2 Online Document

1.2.1 Papers

Legislation

2.1 International

2.2 Domestic

Jurisprudence

3.1 Swiss

  • Niyonteze Case:

  • G case:

    • Judgement of the Divisional Military Tribunal I, 14–18 April 1997, Lausanne, reprinted in A. Ziegler, S. Wehrenberg, R. Weber, Procès de criminels de guerre en Suisse (Zurich : Schulthess Verlag)(2009), at 431.

    • Decision of the Military Court of Cassation, 5.9.1997, available in the Swiss Military Justice’s Collection of Decisions of the Military Court of Cassation, Volume 12 (5), at 2.

  • Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu SCSL-04-16-T, TJ, 20.6.2007 (Brima TJ)

  • Prosecutor v. Halilovic, Case No. IT-01-48-T, Judgment, 16 November 2005 (Halilovic TJ);

  • Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović et al., Case No. IT-01-47-T, Judgment, 15 March 2006 (Hadžihasanović TJ)

  • Prosecutor v. Enver Hadzihasanovic et al., Decision on interlocutory appeal challenging jurisdiction in relation to command responsibility, Case No. IT-01-47-AR72, 16.7.2003 (Hadžihasanović Interlocutory Appeal)

  • Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., TJ, Case no. IT-96-21, Judgment of 16th November 1998 (Delalić TJ)

  • Prosecutor v. Oric, TJ, Case no. IT—03-68-T, Judgment of 30th June 2006 (Oric TJ)

  • Arrest Warrant Case (Democratic Republic of Congo vs. Belgium) ICJ Rep. 2002.

3.2 Other

  • Amsterdam Court of Appeal, Bouterse case (Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 20 November 2000).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Arnold, R. (2014). Applying the Laws of Armed Conflict in Swiss Courts. In: Jinks, D., Maogoto, J., Solomon, S. (eds) Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-008-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation