Belgium v Senegal

SUMMARY: Hissène Habré, currently a resident of Senegal, was the President of the Republic of Chad from 1982 until
1990. During that time, he established a brutal dictatorship which, by the bias of its political police, the Bureau of
Documentation and Security (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité (DDS)) caused the deaths of tens of thousands of
individuals.

Proceedings have commenced and failed against him in the Republic of Chad, Senegal, and most recently in Belgium. The latter
State issued an international arrest warrant for Habré in 2005 for charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and
serious violations of international humanitarian law. The request was never complied with; the Court of Appeal of Dakar in
Senegal held that Habré enjoyed immunity and it was incompetent to rule on the validity of the arrest warrant for a former Head
of State. Belgium instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging that Senegal was in violation of its
obligation to prosecute or extradite Habré under the Convention Against Torture.

The present decision by the ICJ is the culmination of these proceedings. In its decision, the ICJ ruled that Senegal was indeed in
breach of its obligations under the Convention and should proceed without further delay to the prosecution of Habré. It cannot rely
on its internal law or financial difficulties to evade the implementation of this obligation.

BRIEF HISTORY:

 Habré was President of the Republic of Chad for eight years, during which time large-scale violations
of human rights were allegedly committed, including arrests of actual or presumed political
opponents, detentions without trial or under inhumane conditions, mistreatment, torture,
extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances
 He was overthrown by the current President of Chad. After a brief stay in Cameroon, he requested
political asylum from the Senegalese Government, a request which was granted. He then settled in
Dakar, where he has been living ever since.
 He was thrown in house arrest after 7 Chadian nationals residing in Chad, together with an
association of victims, filed with the senior investigating judge at the Dakar Tribunal régional hors
classe a complaint with civil-party application against Mr. Habré on account of crimes committed
during presidency.
 He then filed for annulment of proceedings claiming that the courts of Senegal had no jurisdiction.
This was granted by the Chamber of the Court of Appeal after it found that the investigating judge
lacked jurisdiction and that the concerned crimes committed outside the territory of Senegal by a
foreign national against foreign nationals and that they would involve the exercise of universal
jurisdiction.
 Eventually, after a lot of people filed cases against Habre before a Belgian investigating judge, and
such judge issued two international letters rogatory, to Senegal and Chad.
o 1st letter: sought to obtain a copy of the record of all proceedings concerning Mr. Habré
pending before the Senegalese judicial authorities
 Senegal provided Belgium with a file
o 2 letter: sought to establish judicial co-operation between Belgium and Chad, in
nd

particular requesting that Belgian authorities be permitted to interview the Chadian

complainants and witnesses, to have access to relevant records and to visit relevant
sites
 The Kingdom of Belgium filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings
against the Republic of Senegal in respect of a dispute concerning “Senegal’s compliance with its
obligation to prosecute Mr. Hissène Habré[, former President of the Republic of Chad,] or to
extradite him to Belgium for the purposes of criminal proceedings”.
o Basis: UN Convention against Torture; customary law
o Belgium argued in its application that the Court had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 30,
paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and the declarations made under Article 36,
paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, by Belgium on 17 June 1958 and by Senegal on 2
December 1985
 Application was communicated to the Govt of Senegal by Registrar [in accordance with Art 40, par
2] and all States entitled to appear before the Court were notified of the Application [par 3].
 Immediately after filing, Belgium requested for provisional measures and asked the Court “to
indicate, pending a final judgment on the merits”, provisional measures requiring the Respondent to
take “all the steps within its power to keep Mr. H. Habré under the control and surveillance of the
judicial authorities of Senegal so that the rules of international law with which Belgium requests
compliance may be correctly applied”.
 The Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of either of the Parties and so the
parties chose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case: Belgium chose Mr. Philippe Kirsch and Senegal chose
Mr. Serge Sur.
 The Court found that the circumstance were not such as to require the exercise of its power under
Article 41 of the Statute to indicate provisional measures
 Belgium argued: Senegal breached its international obligations by failing to incorporate in its
domestic law the provisions necessary to enable the Senegalese judicial authorities to exercise the
universal jurisdiction of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment; Senegal has breached and continues to breach its international obligations
 Senegal argued the ICJ cannot adjudicate on the merits of the Application filed by the Kingdom of
Belgium because it lacks jurisdiction as a result of the absence of a dispute between Belgium and
Senegal, and the inadmissibility of that Application; Senegal has not breached any of the provisions
of the 1984 Convention against Torture or more generally, any rule of customary international law