David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. Sinn Féin welcomes the opportunity to speak on this Bill and we commend Deputy Mick Wallace for bringing it forward. We will of course be supporting it. This Bill, if passed, would enable the charging and conviction of persons who breach international human rights law in cases of genocide, war crimes, torture and crimes against humanity, whether these breaches have occurred inside or outside the State. As per the terms of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Convention, the Bill provides a definition of crime against humanity, genocide, torture and war crimes, and it allows for the prosecution of persons whether or not they are public officials, to be prosecuted for these crimes in this jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction, put simply, allows for the State to claim jurisdiction and to prosecute one of the listed crimes such as genocide or a war crime, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the accused or their residence. The rationale behind this is that such crimes are so serious there should be a universal method of addressing them. If something is a crime against humanity then humanity has jurisdiction. Further, the international community has a moral obligation to prosecute. Sinn Féin believes that sovereignty over justice policy and the judicial system is a cornerstone of national independence, one that was removed from the Six Counties by the British occupation and which was steadily eroded in the 26 county through the incremental encroachment of EU control.

Sinn Féin fully supports international co-operation in the area of justice where this is necessary to fight crime and in particular the cross-border trafficking of drugs, and human beings, and in the interests of child protection. Sinn Féin also believes it is equally essential to safeguard the creation of further victims of human rights violations so such measures must be compatible with human rights security. Sinn Féin supports the enhancement of human rights globally and therefore it supports this Bill.

The State is currently party to a number of conventions that require universal jurisdiction such as the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the International Criminal Court, ICC, and the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime. Although the principles of universal jurisdiction have been used for centuries to prosecute crimes such as piracy, it is only relatively recently that states have begun to apply the theory to grave violations of international law such as crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Other jurisdictions that already recognise universal jurisdiction are Australia, Canada, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany and Spain. That a state may investigate and prosecute very serious crimes committed outside its own jurisdiction is not a new idea. This concept was first codified in the Geneva Convention in 1949 and it was universal jurisdiction that enabled Israel to prosecute Adolf Eichmann for his role in the Holocaust during the Second World War. The vast majority of states recognise the validity of universal jurisdiction even though they may not have provided a domestic legislative framework for it.

Ideally, victims of serious crimes against humanity would find redress in the courts where the crimes were committed. The nature of these crimes, however, often means that this is not possible and universal jurisdiction acts as a safety net where the state is unable or unwilling to investigate or hold a trial. In effect, this reduces or has the potential to reduce, certain jurisdictions being used as a safe haven for war criminals. While some people may point to the existence of the International Criminal Court as demonstrating that there is no need universal jurisdiction, it should be recognised that the ICCs jurisdiction is limited. The Rome Statute has only been ratified by 110 state parties and its jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed after 1 July 2002.

Sinn Féin recognises that there have been only a small number of prosecutions using universal jurisdictions where low or mid-level alleged perpetrators have had cases taken against them when they have sought refuge in states outside of where they have committed the crime. We also recognise that some people have criticised universal jurisdiction mechanisms, especially where there is the risk that it may be applied against them, such as Henry Kissinger. Plenty of critics came out of the woodwork to criticise the mechanism when Spain attempted to extradite Augusto Pinochet, which would have led to the implication of a number of other politicians. Ultimately we do not want to see perpetrators of crimes against humanity shielded from accountability for their actions. Dictators and despots commit atrocities such as genocide when they believe that they can get away with it and the concept of universal jurisdiction exists to try and end that. The global community must not accept that impunity is a legitimate alternative to the absence of universal jurisdiction. There should be no place to hide for war criminals. We have recognised that those who have perpetrated crimes against humanity in Bosnia and in Rwanda should be held to account. If we recognise this in principle, then there is no reason why we should not have a domestic legal framework to prosecute these crimes should it emerge that a war criminal has sought refuge on these shores.

There are some who believe that universal jurisdiction interferes with the rights of domestic governments to decide how to address human rights abuses that have been perpetrated by individuals with the backing of the state. In response to this I would point out that Nelson Mandela agreed to grant abusers immunity from prosecution if they gave detailed testimony against their crimes. No prosecutor challenged this. Some may agree with this approach but it is important to note that this measure had the backing of the South African people and could not be considered to be providing those who had committed crimes against humanity with a place to hide.

In conclusion, I urge all Members to support this Bill in the interests of international justice and to demonstrate a commitment to the protection of human rights around the world.

I commend Teachta Wallace for the huge work he has done in this area over many years in fighting for human rights, campaigning against rendition flights and working on a range of issues and campaigns. I support the Bill and do not see any reason that it cannot be progressed at least to Committee Stage. As Teachta Clare Daly said, if the Government is not minded to support this Bill, it should come up with alternatives on its own or demonstrate how existing domestic law is sufficient to make sure we have the type of protections for which Teachta Wallace and others have campaigned and will continue to campaign.

See this speech in context