Brielle K.

Hill
Legal Brief 1
1 March 2018

CASE: KREWE DE WU V HAITI

I. THE FACTS
a. In 1993, the Haitian Coast Guard Commission, received a tip that there was a
Dominican Republic vessel by the name of Krewe de Wu, making its way into
Haitian waters carrying a large shipment of precious artifacts of Haitian history
that had been illegally obtained. Once in Haitian waters the coast guard boarded
the vessel, found and seized the artifacts and arrested the patrons of the vessel.
The crew aboard the vessel were eventually released but the HCGC did not return
the illegally obtained artifacts. In 2003, the Haitian military took control of the
country due to governmental disagreements.
b. The military received a claim from the lawyer representing the members of the
Krewe de Wu, who stated that the previous government refused to return the
artifacts to his client and demanding the return of the goods seized or the value of
the goods. The lawyer claimed that the crew were not aware of the illegal sale of
the artifacts and therefore should be able to receive the goods they paid for or
their money. The Haitian government denies these demands stating the goods
seized were illegal regardless of the party’s knowledge.
II. LEGAL ISSUES
a. Does Haiti have the right to not return the goods or the value demanded by the
Krewe de Wu?
b. Can the Krewe de Wu claim the idea of no knowledge of the illegal selling of the
artifacts? Did they have a right to the artifacts they purchased or the value of
those artifact
III. THE DECISION
a. The court ruled unanimously against the Krewe de Wu and stated that the Haitian
government had a right to keep illegally attained artifacts because they were
Haitian artifacts that were legally seized by the country’s coast guard.
IV. LEGAL REASONING
a. The court stated that customary international law, which exist in Article38(1)(b),
incorporated into the United Nations Charter by Article 92, which states, "The
Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such
disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply...international custom, as evidence of a
general practice accepted as law,” must be observed because there was no treaty
in place here between the Dominican Republic and Haiti referring to Dominican
 Republic citizens entering Haitian waters with stolen Haitian artifacts. The
general practice and accepted law of Haiti is to uphold the law of search and
seizure while seizing contraband. Therefore, making the Haitian government’s
decision to withhold any and all evidence and seized contraband in this crime
justified under international law.
V. CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTS
a. The Haitian government argued that regardless of whether or not the members of
the crew knew that their purchase of Haitian artifacts was illegal or not the
artifacts were still Haitian property and there for should not have been up for sale.
The seizure of these artifacts also took place in Haitian waters making everything
about this case on compliance with international laws. The court considered this
argument and understood it’s validity. If everyone was allowed to claim the idea
of no knowledge there no room for law to provide motivation for obedience;
everyone would feel it ok to contribute to illegal activity with no consequence.
The government could have also argued that if the members of the Krewe had no
idea the artifacts were illegal why were they trying to conceal the evidence from
coast guard officials when they were boarded? The theory of realism may apply to
the Haitian government’s actions, meaning based on their main objective of
survival (keeping commerce flowing legally into the economy) they were
obligated to maximize their relative power (search and seizure) in order to
preserve their territory and existence.
b. The Krewe argued that they were not made aware of the illegal aspect of their
purchase and that once money was exchange the artifacts became their property,
the court did not see this as a valid argument because regardless of the knowledge
of the sale, common sense should have come into play. It is knowledge that most
precious artifacts cannot be purchased off the street. They may have also been
able to argue that the unanimous tip that the coast guard received was a set up
from the people they purchased the artifacts from therefore they claimed they
were involved in entrapment and it could have been orchestrated by the Haitian
authorities. This argument, however, still would not have excused the Krewe from
the criminal activity of purchasing illegal artifacts.