NOTE

THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF GENOCIDE DENIAL LAWS

IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Sean G o r t o n *

I. I n t r o d u c t io n

In 2011, Gyorgy Nagy was arrested at a rally in Hungary for hold­

ing a banner that read, “The Shoah [Holocaust] did no t h ap p en .”
In early 2013, Nagy became the first person to be convicted u n d er
the 2010 H ungarian H olocaust denial law, which makes “ ‘denying,
questioning, or making light of the H olocaust’ illegal.”* 1 Nagy was
sentenced to eighteen m onths in prison, which was suspended for
three years, and probation.2 In addition, Nagy m ust visit either
B udapest’s H olocaust mem orial museum , Auschwitz, or Yad
Vashem, which is Israel’s mem orial to Jewish victims of the Holo­
caust in Jerusalem , and record his observations.3
Genocide was first recognized as a crime by the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishm ent of the Crime of Genocide, which
was ratified on D ecem ber 9, 1948.4 Article 2 of the convention
defines genocide as follows:
[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on
the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring chil­
dren of the group to another group.5

* J.D. expected 2015, The George Washington University Law School; B.A. 2012,
Villanova University.
1. Hungarian Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Visit Memorial and Journal About Experience,
H u f f in g t o n P o s t (Feb. 2, 2013, 11:17 AM), http://w w w.huffingtonpost.com /2013/02/
02/hungarian-holocuast-denier-sentenced-visit-memorial-journal-experience_n_2602773
.html.
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted
Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277 [hereinafter Genocide Convention],
5. Id. art. 2.

421
422 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

G regory Stanton, P resid en t o f G enocide W atch, has divided

genocide into eig h t distinct stages.6 T hese eig h t stages include:
classification, sym bolization, d eh u m an izatio n , organization, polari­
zation, p rep aratio n , ex term in atio n , an d d en ial,7 th e last o f w hich
will be the focus o f this N ote. S tanton argues th a t d en ial extends
the crim e o f gen o cid e to fu tu re gen eratio n s o f survivors because it
is a co n tin u atio n o f th e in te n t to destroy th e g ro u p .8 G enocide
denial can take a n u m b e r o f d ifferen t form s, including, b u t n o t
lim ited to, denying th a t th e re w ere any mass killing at all o r ques­
tioning a n d m inim izing th e n u m b e r o f victims.9 In add itio n , g en o ­
cide deniers em ploy a n u m b e r o f d ifferen t tactics, including:
claim ing th a t the d eath s w ere caused by fam ine, m igration, o r dis­
ease, blam ing out-of-control militias fo r th e killings, casting th e vic­
tims as disloyal insurgents d u rin g w artim e, claim ing th a t th e d ead
w ere victims o f a civil war, an d attem p tin g to d em o n strate th a t th e
d e n ie rs’ g ro u p also suffered h u g e losses d u rin g th e “conflict,”
w hich attem pts to cloak a n d legitim ize th e gen o cid e as self-
d efen se.10
G enocide denial has b een recognized as a serious p ro b lem in a
n u m b e r o f W estern co u n tries;*11 however, th e re is a wide d eg ree o f
variation in how these co u n tries ap p ro ach gen o cid e d en ial from a
legal sta n d p o in t.12 For exam ple, in th e U n ited States, any a ttem p t
to restrict th e freed o m o f speech is generally m e t with stro n g o p p o ­
sition, an d th e h o p e is th a t th e free exchange o f ideas will expose
genocide d en iers as liars an d racists.13 In o th e r words, h arm ful
speech is com bated, a n d hopefully d efeated, with m o re sp eech .14
W hile this ap p ro ach is ap p ealin g to th e U n ited States, o th e r co u n ­
tries em ploy d ifferen t m ethodologies, in clu d in g th e use o f crim inal
sanctions.15 T h e seriousness o f genocide as a crim e, co u p led with

6. Gregory H. Stanton, The 8 Stages o f Genocide, G enocide W a tch (1998), http://www

.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Gregory H. Stanton, The 12 Ways to Deny a Genocide, G en o cide W a tch (Sept. 13,
2004), http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/12waystodenygenocide.html.
10. Id.
11. S«eJohn C. Knechtle, Holocaust Denial and the Concept o f Dignity in the European
Union, 36 Fla. St . U. L. Rev. 41, 55 (2008).
12. See Roger Kiska, Hate Speech: A Comparison Between the European Court o f H um an
Bights and the United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence, 25 R eg en t U. L. R ev . 107, 138
(2013).
13. See Knechtle, supra note 11, at 47.
14. See id.
15. See, e.g., Loi 90-615 du 13 julliet 1990 tendant a reprimer tout acte raciste,
antisemite, ou xenophobe [Law 90-615 of July 13, 1990 to Suppress Any Racist, Anti-
2015] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 423

the fact that genocide denial extends the genocide to surviving

generations , 16 has prom pted a num ber of E.U. m em ber states to
take affirmative and, in some cases, drastic steps to eradicate geno­
cide denial . 17 Austria , 18 Belgium , 19 the Czech Republic , 20 France , 21
G erm any , 22 H ungary , 23 Luxem bourg , 24 Poland , 25 R om ania ,26
Slovakia , 27 Slovenia , 28 and Switzerland 29 have all criminalized geno­
cide denial to a certain extent, and the punishm ents for violating a
country’s respective genocide denial laws range from a m odest fine
to a lengthy prison sentence .30 In addition, on a supranational
level, the European Parliam ent has passed legislation to address
the issue. The m ost recent piece of legislation regarding genocide

Semitic or Xenophobic Act], J ournal O fficiel De La REpublique Francaise [J.O.] [O ffi­

cial Gazette of France], July 14, 1990, p. 8333 [hereinafter Gayssot Act].
16. See Ivan R. Mugisha, Scholars Discuss Impact of Genocide Denial, N ew T imes (July 18,
2012), http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/article/2012-07-18/55190.
17. See, e.g., Gayssot Act, supra note 15; Strafgesetzbuch [St GB] [P enal C o d e ], Nov.
13, 1998, B undesgesetzblatt I at 3222, as amended, § 130, ch. 3 (Ger.) [hereinafter G er­
man P enal C o d e ],
18. B undes -Verfassungsgesetz [B-VG] [C o n s t it u t io n ] BGBI No. 1/1930, as last
amended by Bundesverfassungsgesetz [BVG] BGBI No. 148/1992 (Austria) [hereinafter
Austria Holocaust Denial Law].
19. Proposition De Loi tendant a reprimer la contestation, la remise en cause et la
negation ou l’apologie des crimes contre l’humanite et des crimes de guerre of Mar. 23,
1995, M o n it eu r B elge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Mar. 30, 1995, 1996 [hereinaf­
ter Belgium Law of Mar. 23].
20. Jacqueline Lechtholz-Zey, The Laws Banning Holocaust Denial, G en o cide P reven ­
t io n Now, Winter 2012, at 3 (discussing Czech Republic’s Law Against Support and Dis­
semination of Movements Oppressing Human Rights and Freedoms), available at http: / /
www.genocidepreventionnow.org/Home/GPNISSUES/Issue3Summer2010/tabid/70/ctl/
DisplayArticle/mid/460/aid/153/Default.aspx.
21. Gayssot Act, supra note 15, art. 24 bis.
22. G erman P enal C o d e , supra note 17, § 130.
23. See Hungarian Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Visit Memorial and Journal About Experi­
ence, supra note 1.
24. Lechtholz-Zey, supra note 20, at 8 (discussing Article 457-3 of Luxembourg’s Crim­
inal Code, which criminalizes Holocaust denial).
25. Id. (discussing Poland’s Act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National
Remembrance-Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation).
26. Id. at 9 (discussing Romania’s Emergency Ordinance No. 31 of March 13, 2002,
which prohibits Holocaust denial).
27. See Slovakia Keeps Law Against Holocaust Denial, H aaretz (Feb. 9, 2005, 12:00 AM),
http ://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/slovakia-keeps-law-against-holocaust-denial-
1.149684.
28. Kazenski Zakon [KZ-1] [Criminal Code], art. 297 (Slovn.), available at h ttp ://
www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=180880.
29. Schweizerisches Strafgestetzbuch [StGB] [Criminal Code] Dec. 21, 1937, 54
AS at 757 (1938), as amended by Gesetz, June 18, 1993 AS 2887 (1994), art. 261 (Switz.)
[hereinafter Switzerland art. 261].
30. See, e.g., id. (authorizing a penal sentence of up to three years or a fine); G erman
P enal C o d e , supra note 17, § 130 (authorizing a penal sentence of up to five years or a
fine).
424 The Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

denial is th e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision on com bating racism an d

x en o p h o b ia (2008 Fram ew ork D ecision), w hich req u ires all m em ­
b e r states to crim inalize genocide denial in certain contexts.31
W hile the E u ro p ean U n io n passed th e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision
with noble inten tio n s, m e m b er states an d courts have e n c o u n te re d
difficulties in d eterm in in g w here a n d how th e legislation requires
them to draw th e line betw een free expression an d genocide
denial.32
T h e N ote follows in two separate parts, providing a b ack g ro u n d
on the c u rre n t trajectory o f genocide denial laws in th e E u ro p ean
U n io n an d p ro p o sin g am en d m en ts to th e 2008 Fram ew ork Deci­
sion. P art II will provide a b ack g ro u n d on th e 2008 Fram ew ork
Decision, in d e p e n d e n t m easures ad o p ted by select m em b er states,
a b rief description o f how th e freed o m o f expression is trea ted in
the E u ro p ean U nion, an d a sum m ary o f th e E u ro p ean C o u rt o f
H um an R ights’ (ECHR) co n ten tio u s decisions in Garaudy v. France,
w here th e co u rt h eld th a t H olocaust d en iers could n o t invoke th e
freed o m o f expression as a d efen se,33 an d in Perinc.ek v. Switzerland,
w here th e co u rt vacated the a p p lican t’s conviction fo r denying the
A rm enian genocide o n th e g ro u n d s th a t it violated th e a p p lican t’s
freedom o f expression.34 P art III will d em o n strate th a t th e 2008
Fram ew ork D ecision n eeds to be am e n d e d because various sec­
tions o f the legislation are p h rased in vague an d overly g en eral
term s. T h e vague language encourages m em b er states to go
beyond the m inim um req u ire m en ts—w hich may be im perm issible
in light o f rece n t case law— a n d it is difficult to reconcile th e m ini­
m um req u irem en ts o f th e legislation with an individual’s rig h t to
free expression. In add itio n , P art III will advocate fo r specific
am en d m en ts to th e legislation, in clu d in g clearer language an d a
narrow er scope, an d will explain how such am en d m en ts w ould fare

31. Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008, 2008 O.J. (L

328) 55 [hereinafter 2008 Framework Decision].
32. See generally Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on
the Implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on Combating Certain Forms and
Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law, COM (2014) 27 final (Jan. 27,
2014) [hereinafter January Report] (discussing how certain member states have failed to
adequately adopt certain portions of the 2008 Framework Decision).
33. Garaudy v. France, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 371, 372.
34. See Perincek v. Switzerland, App. No. 27510/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013), available at
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-139724. Switzerland exer­
cised its right to appeal this decision on March 11, 2014. Siranush Ghazanchyan, Turkey
Responds to Switzerland’s Decision to Appeal European Court Ruling on Armenian Genocide Denial,
P u b . R a d io A r m . (Mar. 14, 2014, 2:39 PM), http://www.armradio.am/en/2014/03/14/
turkey-responds-to-switzerlands-decision-to-appeal-european-court-ruling-on-armenian-
genocide-denial.
201 5 ] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 425

u n d e r the c u rre n t ECH R ju risp ru d e n c e . T hese am en d m en ts will

h elp en su re th a t m e m b er states strike a stro n g er balance betw een
th e desire to eradicate o n e o f th e m ost egregious form s o f h ate
speech an d th e hallow ed rig h t o f free expression.

II. Backg ro u n d

A. European Union’s Attempt to Eradicate Genocide Denied

T h e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision rep resen ts th e E u ro p ean U n io n ’s

m ost re c e n t a ttem p t to crim inalize genocide d en ial.35 T h e 2008
Fram ew ork D ecision req u ires m e m b er states to crim inalize con­
d u ct th a t publicly incites “violence o r h a tre d d irected against a
g ro u p o f persons o r a m em b er o f such a g ro u p d efin ed by refer­
ence to race, colour, religion, d escen t o r n atio n al o r eth n ic ori­
g in .”36 In reg ard to genocide denial, Articles 1(1) (c) an d 1(1) (d)
o f the 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision req u ire m em b er states to
crim inalize “publicly co n d o n in g , denying o r grossly trivializing
crim es o f genocide, crim es against h u m anity a n d war crim es”37 an d
“crim es d efin ed in Article 6 o f th e C h arter o f the In tern a tio n a l Mil­
itary T rib u n al a p p e n d e d to th e L o n d o n A g reem en t o f 8 A ugust
1945”38 w hen th e c o n d u ct “is carried o u t in a m a n n e r likely to
incite to violence o r h atre d against such a g ro u p o r a m em b er of
such a g ro u p .”39 Article 1 (2) fu rth e r stipulates th a t “M em ber
States may choose to p u n ish only co n d u ct w hich is eith e r carried
o u t in a m a n n e r likely to d isturb public o rd e r o r w hich is th re a te n ­
ing, abusive, o r insulting.”40 F u rth er, Article 1(4) states the
following:

35. Prior to the 2008 Fram ework Decision, the E uropean Parliam ent a d o p ted the
A dditional Protocol to the C onvention on Cybercrime in 2002. T he A dditional Protocol
represented the first time the E uropean U nion required m em ber states to criminalize
genocide denial in any context, as it req u ired m em ber states to crim inalize the following:
[D istrib u tin g o r otherwise m aking available, through a com puter system to the
public, m aterial which denies, grossly minimizes, approves, o r justifies acts consti­
tuting genocide or crimes against hum anity, as defined by international law and
recognized as such by final and binding decisions o f the In ternational Military
T ribunal, established by the L ondon A greem ent of 8 August 1945, o r o f any o th er
international court established by relevant international instrum ents an d whose
jurisdiction is recognized by th at Party.
See A dditional Protocol to the C onvention on Cybercrime, C oncerning the Crim inalization
of Acts o f a Racist o r X enophobic N ature C om m itted T h rough C om puter Systems art.
6(1), Jan. 28, 2003, E.T.S. No. 189.
36. 2008 Fram ework Decision, supra n o te 31, art. 1 (1 )(a).
37. Id. art. 1 (1 )(c).
38. Id. art. 1(1) (d ).
39. Id. art. 1 (1 )( c ) - ( l) ( d ) .
40. Id. art. 1(2).
426 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47
Any member state may, on adoption of this Framework Decision
or later, make a statement that it will make punishable the act of
denying or grossly trivializing the crimes referred to in para­
graph 1(c) and/or 1(d) only if the crimes referred to in these
paragraphs have been established by a final decision of a
national court of this Member State and/or an international
court, or by a final decision of an international court only.41
Finally, Article 7(1) reiterates the requirem ent that m em ber
states m ust respect an individual’s freedom of expression, as Article
7(1) explicitly states that this “Framework Decision shall n o t have
the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundam ental
rights and fundam ental legal principles, including freedom of
expression and association.”42 Nevertheless, the 2008 Framework
Decision does n o t define the terms and acts that m em ber states are
required to criminalize as it does not provide any fu rth er explana­
tion for terms such as “abusive,” “insulting,” and “grossly
trivializing.”43

B. Action to Combat Genocide Denial at the State Level

In addition to the 2008 Framework Decision, a num ber of E.U.
m em ber states have laws specifically dealing with genocide denial.
M em ber states that have criminalized genocide denial include,
am ong others, Austria,44 Belgium,45 the Czech Republic,46
France,47 Germany,48 Hungary,49 Poland,50 Luxem bourg,51 Switzer­
land,52 and Slovakia.53 A num ber of these m em ber states passed
genocide denial laws prior to the 2008 Framework Decision.54 For
example, Germany criminalized H olocaust denial in 1985.55 In
Germany, it is a crime to approve, deny, or belittle an act commit­
ted u n d er the Nazi regime in a m anner capable of disturbing the
public peace, and it is also a crime to approve, deny, or ren d er

41. Id. art. 1(4).

42. Id. art. 7(1).
43. See id. arts. 1(2), 1(1) (c )-(l)(d ).
44. Austria Holocaust Denial Law, supra note 18.
45. Belgium Law of Mar. 23, supra note 19.
46. Lechtholz-Zey, supra note 20.
47. Gayssot Act, supra note 15, art. 24 bis.
48. G er m a n P e n a l C o d e , supra note 17.
49. See H ungarian Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Visit Memorial and Journal About Experi­
ence, supra note 1.
50. Lechtholz-Zey, supra note 20.
51. Id.
52. Switzerland art. 261, supra note 29.
53. See Slovakia Keeps Law A gainst Holocaust Denial, supra note 27.
54. G erm an P en a l C o d e , supra note 17.
55. Id.
2015] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 427

harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule in a m an­

n er that assaults the hum an dignity of the victims.56 In addition,
France criminalized Holocaust denial with the passage of the 1990
Gayssot Act, which makes it a crime to question the existence or
scope of the Holocaust.57 Violation of the Gayssot Act is punisha­
ble by up to five years im prisonm ent and a €45,000 fine.58 Finally,
in 1995, Switzerland updated its penal code so that Article 261 now
states the following:
[WJhoever publicly, by word, writing, image, gesture, acts of vio­
lence or any other manner demeans or discriminates against an
individual or a group of individuals because of their race, their
ethnicity, or their religion in a way which undermines human
dignity, or on those bases, denies, coarsely minimizes or seeks to
justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity shall be pun­
ished by up to three years imprisonment or a fine .59
Prior to 2008, similar laws, all of which carry lengthy prison
sentences and hefty fines, were also passed in Austria,60 Belgium,61
Poland,62 the Czech Republic,63 Romania,64 and Luxem bourg.65
While a num ber of E.U. m em ber states enacted genocide denial
laws prior to the 2008 Framework Decision, other m em ber states
have am ended their criminal codes in response to the 2008 Frame­
work Decision. For example, in 2010, Hungary passed a law stating
that those who publicly h u rt the dignity of a victim of the Holo­
caust by denying or questioning the H olocaust itself violate the law
and can be im prisoned for up to three years.66 In addition, in
2011, Slovakia am ended its Holocaust denial provision to punish
A rm enian genocide denial with up to five years im prisonm ent.67
O n their face, laws criminalizing genocide denial appear to con­
flict with Article 10 of the 1950 Convention for the Protection of
H um an Rights and Fundam ental Freedoms (European Conven­
tion on H um an Rights), which guarantees an individual’s right to

56. Id.
57. See Gayssot Act, supra note 15.
58. Id.
59. Switzerland art. 261, supra note 29.
60. Austria Holocaust Denial Law, supra note 18.
61. Belgium Law of Mar. 23, supra note 19.
62. Lechtholz-Zey, supra note 20, pt. III.
63. Id.
64. Id.
65. Id.
66. Id.
67. Slovak Official: Any Turk Denying Armenian Genocide in Slovakia Will Be Jailed,
PanARMENIAN N et (Apr. 5, 2012, 2:45 PM), http://w w w .panarm enian.net/eng/new s/
101796.
428 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

free expression,68 as these laws clearly criminalize speech based on

its content. Over the years, the ECHR has developed a m ethodol­
ogy for analyzing Article 10 claims; however, the ECHR’s Article 10
m ethodology in the area of genocide denial has been somewhat
com plicated by its contentious decisions in Garaudy v. France and
Perincek v. Switzerland.

C. Freedom of Expression in the European Union

Freedom of expression is one of the m ost im portant and cher­
ished rights in any dem ocratic society,69 and the European U nion
codified this belief in Article 10 of the European Convention on
H um an Rights. Paragraph 1 of Article 10 states, in relevant part,
that “[ejveryone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and im part
inform ation and ideas w ithout interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers.”70 In Case ofHandyside v. the United Kingdom,
the ECHR famously held that the freedom of expression “is appli­
cable not only to ‘inform ation’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably
received or regarded as inoffensive or as a m atter of indifference,
but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb.”71 While the Euro­
pean U nion explicitly recognizes an individual’s right to free
expression, it also recognizes that, in certain contexts, the freedom
of expression m ust yield to other concerns.72 Accordingly, the
European U nion qualifies the freedom of expression by explicitly
laying out exceptions to this freedom in Paragraph 2 of Article 10.
Specifically, freedom of expression:
may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or
penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a demo­
cratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection
of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclo­
sure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining
the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.73
This list of exceptions has essentially proven exhaustive and the
ECHR has been reluctant to allow a m em ber state to abridge the

68. See Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
art. 10, Nov. 4, 1950, E.T.S. No. 005 [hereinafter European Convention on Human
Rights].
69. See Tammer v. Estonia, 2001-1 Eur. Ct. H.R. 263, 279.
70. European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 68, art. 10(1).
71. Handyside v. United Kingdom, 24 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 18 (1976).
72. See European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 68, art. 10(1)—(2).
73. See id. art. 10(2).
2015] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 429

freed o m o f expression for any reason o th e r th a n th e ones explicitly

listed in P arag rap h 2 o f Article 10.74

1. Ar ticle 10 an d th e ECHR
Because P arag rap h 1 o f Article 10 an d th e Handyside decision
provide ro b u st p ro tectio n to th e freed o m o f expression by th eir
own term s a n d th e exceptions in P arag rap h 2 o f Article 10 are
p h rased in g en eral term s, th e ECH R has ad o p ted a th ree-p art test
to d eterm in e w h eth er a m e m b er state has perm issibly lim ited an
individual’s freed o m o f expression.75 T h e test req u ires th e co u rt
to d e term in e w h eth er th e in terferen ce is p rescrib ed by law, p u r­
sues a legitim ate aim, an d is necessary in a d em ocratic society.76

a. In terfe re n ce P rescribed by Law an d in P ursuit o f a

L egitim ate Aim
First, the co u rt d eterm in es w h eth er th e in terferen ce with the
freed o m o f expression was p rescrib ed by law, as th e alleged
o ffen d er m ust be able to d ed u ce from th e law th a t his o r h e r co n ­
d u c t is illegal b efore charges are filed.77 T he ECH R will virtually
always find th a t this re q u ire m e n t is m et, as th e ECHR has h eld th at
the consequences o f an act “ [do no t] n e e d to be foreseeable with
absolute certainty” because “m any laws are inevitably co u ch ed in
term s w hich, to a g reater o r lesser ex tent, are vague an d whose
in terp reta tio n s an d applications are questions o f p ractice.”78 After
d eterm in in g w h eth er an in frin g em en t is p rescrib ed by law, the
ECH R will look to w h eth er th e law pursues a legitim ate aim u n d e r
P aragraph 2 o f Article 10.79 As discussed above,80 th e list o f excep­
tions in P arag rap h 2 o f Article 10 is ra th e r com prehensive an d con­
sequently this p a rt o f th e analysis is rarely co n tested .81

74. See generally Tammer, 2001-1 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 265-66, 279-80 (stating that the
restrictions on freedom of expression laid out in Article 10(2) must be strictly construed
and any such restriction must be established convincingly).
75. See id. at 274.
76. See, e.g., id.
77. See id. at 275.
78. Rekvenyi v. Hungary, 1999-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 423, 440-41.
79. See, e.g., Surek v. Turkey, 1999TV Eur. Ct. H.R. 353, 379-80; Rekvenyi, 1999-III Eur.
Ct. H.R. at 441-43.
80. Supra Part II.
81. Supra Part II; cf. Perincek v. Switzerland, App. No. 27510/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013),
available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-l39724 (hold­
ing that law was passed to protect the reputations and rights of descendants of victims of
the Armenian genocide but rejecting the claim that the law was passed to ensure public
order).
430 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47
b. Necessary in a Democratic Society
After determ ining that the infringem ent is prescribed by law and
that the law was enacted in furtherance of a legitimate aim, the
ECHR m ust determ ine w hether the intrusion is necessary in a dem ­
ocratic society, which has proven to be the m ost contentious part of
the analysis.82 In making this determ ination, the court utilizes a
two-prong inquiry. First, the court looks at w hether there is a press­
ing social need in the m em ber state; moreover, the ECHR has held
that m em ber states should be accorded a wide degree of latitude in
deciding what constitutes a pressing social need .83 Second, the
court determ ines w hether the interference with the freedom of
expression is proportional to the pursuit of the legitimate aim.
While the ECHR insinuates otherwise, the nature and severity of
the im posed penalties will almost always be the determ inative fac­
tor in deciding w hether an interference is proportional.84 In sum,
the ECHR will hold that there is no infringem ent on the freedom
of expression if the abridgm ent is prescribed by law, the law was
enacted in furtherance of a legitimate aim pursuant to Paragraph 2
of Article 10, and the intrusion is necessary in a dem ocratic soci­
ety—which means that there is a pressing social need in the m em ­
ber state and the interference is proportional to the pursuit of the
legitimate aim.85

D. Holocaust Denial Laws: Garaudy v. France

In 1997, Roger Garaudy was convicted in France for, am ong
other offenses, violating the 1990 Gayssot Act, which criminalizes
Holocaust denial.86 Garaudy authored a book, The Founding Myths
of Israeli Politics, which contained chapters entitled “The Myth of the
Nuremberg Trials” and “The Myth of the Holocaust.”87 O n appeal, the
French court held that the constituent elem ents of the offense of
denying crimes against hum anity had been m et because Garaudy’s

82. See generally Surek, 1999-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. at 353 (finding that Turkish government’s
criminal sanctions against the owner and editor of a publication supporting the terror
organization Kurdistan Workers Party satisfied the necessity requirement).
83. Ekin Ass’n v. France, 2001-V1II Eur. Ct. H.R. 323, 344; cf. Perincek, App. No.
27510/08 (holding that Switzerland did not demonstrate a pressing social need that law
was necessary to protect the rights and reputations of descendants of the Armenian
genocide).
84. See, e.g., Ceylan v. Turkey, 1999-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 25, 40; Tammer v. Estonia, 2001-1
Eur. Ct. H.R. 263, 280.
85. See, e.g., Ceylan, 1999-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. at 36; Tammer, 2001-1 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 274.
86. Gayssot Act, supra note 15; Garaudy v. France, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 371, 378-81.
87. Garaudy, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. at 375.
2015] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 431

intention was to “deny that a ‘final solution,’ in the sense of peo­

ple’s extermination, of the Jewish question was organized. He also
denies the method used, which was to send those unable or no
longer able to work to their death in the gas chambers and inciner­
ate their bodies.”88 Garaudy appealed to the ECHR claiming that
his book did not deny that the Nazis had committed crimes against
humanity but rather that his book was a political work intending to
criticize the State of Israel’s policies, which meant that he could
not be labeled as a revisionist and the French courts had impermis­
sibly interfered with his freedom of expression under Article 10.89
The ECHR disagreed and held that Garaudy’s book denied the
reality of clearly established historical facts, the Holocaust, and that
this did not constitute historical research akin to a quest for
truth.90 The court continued by providing—what some consider—
an explicit endorsement for genocide denial laws,91 as the ECHR
held that “[djenying crimes against humanity is . . . one of the most seri­
ous forms of racial defamation ofJews and of incitement of hatred [against]
them.'"92 Consequently, the ECHR held that Garaudy’s Article 10
claim was barred by Article 17,93 which prohibits individuals from
deriving from the European Convention of Human Rights a “right
to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruc­
tion of any of the rights and freedoms set forth” in the
Convention.94
After finding that Garaudy’s Article 10 claim was barred by Arti­
cle 17, the ECHR applied Article 10 to Garaudy’s convictions and
found that the convictions would not have violated Garaudy’s free­
dom of expression had he been allowed to advance such a
88. Id. at 378.
89. Id. at 390.
90. Id. at 396.
91. See Perincek v. Switzerland, App. No. 27510/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013) at 74, availa­
ble at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-139724 (Vucinic, J
dissenting).
92. Garaudy, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. at 397 (emphasis added).
93. Id. at 398.
94. European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 68, art. 17. Article 17 was
originally included in the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent a totalitarian
regime from distorting other rights in a bid for power. In Garaudy, the ECHR extends this
notion by invoking Article 17 and establishing the principle that those who deny clearly
established historical facts are not entitled to Article 10 protection. However, it is unclear
how far this notion extends, as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has almost
exclusively applied Article 17 to cases that involve the attempted rehabilitation of the Nazi
regime and, more recently, in cases involving Islamaphobia. For a further discussion of the
ECHR’s Article 17 jurisprudence, see Hannes Cannie & Dirk Voorhoof, The Abuse Clause
and Freedom of Expression in the European Human Rights Convention: An Added Valuefor Democ­
racy and Human Rights Protection? , 29 N e t h . Q. H u m . R ts . 54 (2011).
432 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

defense.95 T h e ECHR h eld th a t the in terferen ce with th e freedom

o f expression was p rescrib ed by law, as th e 1990 Gayssot Act explic­
itly p ro h ib ited G araudy’s co n d u ct.96 Next, th e ECH R fo u n d th a t
the in terferen ce p u rsu ed two o f th e legitim ate aims listed in Para­
g rap h 2 o f Article 10,97 as th e 1990 Gayssot Act was designed “to
secure the peaceful coexistence o f th e F rench p o p u la tio n .”98
Finally, the ECH R ru led th a t th e in terferen ce was necessary in a
dem ocratic society (i.e., th a t F rance was addressing a pressing
social n eed , anti-Sem itism , an d th e in terferen ce was p ro p o rtio n al
to the p u rsu it o f legitim ate aim s).99 T he E C H R ’s ruling th a t deny­
ing crim es against h u m anity constitutes o n e o f th e m ost serious
form s o f racial d efam ation an d in c item en t to h a tre d against a p ar­
ticular g ro u p o f p eo p le ap p ears to provide a stro n g e n d o rsem e n t
for a g o v ern m e n t’s decision to crim inalize the denial o f o th e r
genocides an d crim es against h u m an ity .100 However, th e ECHR
a p p ea red to take a step back from this ratio n ale in D ecem b er 2013
with its decision in Perincek v. Switzerland,101 w hich is currently
p en d in g ap p ea l.102

E. The Armenian Genocide: P erincek v. Switzerland

D ogu Perincek, w ho is a m em b er o f th e W orkers’ Party o f T u r­

key an d holds a d o cto rate in law, described th e A rm enian g en o ­
cide, w hich o ccu rred in 1915 after W orld W ar I w hen th e O tto m an
E m pire killed approxim ately o n e m illion A rm enians, as an “in ter­
national lie” on th ree separate occasions in Sw itzerland.103 T he
Sw itzerland-A rm enia A ssociation filed a co m p lain t in July 2005,
a n d in M arch 2007, P erincek was fo u n d guilty o f racial discrim ina­
tion, fined, a n d given a su sp en d ed jail se n ten c e.104 Article 261 o f
the Swiss P enal C ode crim inalizes racial discrim ination an d p ro h ib ­
its an individual from denying, grossly m inim izing, o r justifying
genocide o r o th e r crim es against h u m an ity .105 T h e crim e carries

95. Garaudy, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. at 397.

96. Id.; Gayssot Act, supra note 15.
97. Garaudy, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. at 397.
98. Id.
99. See id. at 398.
100. Id. at 397.
101. See Perincek v. Switzerland, App. No. 27510/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013) at 2, available
at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-l 39724.
102. Ghazanchyan, supra note 34.
103. Perincek, App. No. 27510/08 at 2.
104. Id.
105. Switzerland, art. 261, supra note 29.
2015] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 433

with it a poten tial p u n ish m e n t o f u p to th ree years im p riso n m en t

in ad d itio n to a m o n etary fin e .106
In D ecem ber 2013, th e ECHR fo u n d th a t P erin cek ’s conviction
violated his freed o m o f expression u n d e r Article 10.107 T h e co u rt
began its analysis by attem p tin g to articulate why P erin cek ’s Article
10 claim was n o t b arred by Article 17, w hich w ould d ifferentiate
this case from Garaudy,108 T h e ECH R d ifferen tiated these cases by
claim ing th a t P erincek h ad n o t d en ie d th a t m assacres an d d e p o rta ­
tions o ccu rred in th e years following W orld W ar I per se b u t ra th e r
th a t his speech a ttem p ted to refute th e n o tio n th a t these m assacres
an d d ep o rtatio n s a m o u n ted to th e legal d efinition o f g en o cid e.109
T h e ECH R h eld th a t P erin cek h ad n o t expressed c o n tem p t fo r the
victims o f the A rm enian genocide o r d en ie d th a t th e atrocities had,
in fact, occurred; thus, he h ad n o t u su rp ed th e rig h t to openly dis­
cuss sensitive a n d potentially u n p o p u la r issues.110
Following th e EC H R ’s decision th a t P erin cek ’s Article 10 claim
was n o t b a rre d by A rticle 17, the ECH R analyzed P erin cek ’s claim
u n d e r the fam iliar Article 10 fram ew ork.**111 In d o in g so, th e ECHR
reviewed, in detail, w h eth er P erin ce k ’s act was p ro scrib ed by law.112
In this case, Article 261 o f th e Swiss P enal C ode refers to “g en o ­
cide” in a general sense a n d does n o t qualify th e term by explicitly
referrin g to any specific instance o f genocide, such as th e H olo­
caust o r the A rm en ian g en o cid e.113 N onetheless, the ECH R even­
tually fo u n d th a t in P erin ce k ’s case, the crim inal sanction was
foreseeable— as he h ad a d o cto rate in law, was aware o f th e Swiss
stan d ard for san ctioning gen o cid e denial, an d was aware th a t the
Swiss N ational C ouncil recognized th e A rm enian m assacres as
genocide in 2002.114 Next, th e ECH R fo u n d th a t th e conviction
served the legitim ate p u rp o se o f p ro tec tin g th e rep u ta tio n an d
rights o f fam ilies an d relatives o f victims o f th e A rm enian geno-

106. Id.
107. See European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 68, art. 10; Perincek, App.
No. 27510/08 at 53.
108. Compare Garaudy v. France, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 371, 397, with Perincek, App. No.
27510/08 at 29.
109. See Garaudy, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. at 397; Perincek, App. No. 27510/08 HI 51, 54
110. Perincek, App. No. 27510/08 Hit 51-52; see also Handyside v. United Kingdom, 24
Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 18 (1976) (finding that freedom of expression also covers ideas
that “offend, shock, or disturb the State or any sector of the population”).
111. Perincek, App. No. 27510/08 subsec. 1(B).
112. Compare, e.g., Rekvenyi v. Hungary, 1999-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 423, 439-42, with Per­
incek, App. No. 27510/08 HH 58-72.
113. Switzerland art. 261, supra note 29.
114. Perincek, App. No. 27510/08 H 71.
434 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

cide; however, th e ECH R h eld th a t th e conviction did n o t fu rth e r

the legitim ate aim o f preserving public o rd e r.115 This rep resen ted
a significant d e p a rtu re from Garaudy, w here the EC H R h eld th at
m ere denial constitutes in c item en t to h a tre d o r violence, w hich is a
th re a t to public o rd e r.116
Finally, th e EC H R arrived at th e m ost co n ten tio u s p a rt o f the
analysis: w h eth er th e restriction was necessary in a dem ocratic soci­
ety. In assessing w h eth er th e re was a pressing social n e e d fo r this
restriction on th e freed o m o f expression in Switzerland, th e ECHR
ap p e a re d to be less d eferen tial th a n n o rm a l.117 T h e EC H R began
its analysis by on ce again differen tiatin g th e H olocaust from the
A rm enian genocide by stating th a t the denial o f th e H olocaust is
currently th e m ain driver o f anti-Semitism; however, th e co u rt
fo u n d th a t rejection o f th e legal d efinition o f genocide fo r th e
A rm enian m assacres does n o t have th e sam e im p act on p e o p le ’s
attitu d e tow ard A rm en ian s.118 N ext, th e ECH R— som ew hat curi­
ously— p o in te d o u t th a t only two o th e r m e m b er states have g en eral
genocide denial laws th a t could theoretically be used to p u n ish
som eone fo r denying th e A rm enian genocide, w hich called into
question the pressing social n e e d claim ed by Sw itzerland.119
O n the o th e r h an d , th e ECH R fo u n d th a t Switzerland satisfied
the p ro portio n ality p ro n g o f th e necessity analysis.120 N evertheless,
as discussed above, th e ECH R h eld th a t Switzerland still failed to
d em o n strate th a t the a p p lican t’s conviction m et a pressing social
n eed o r th a t it was necessary for th e p ro tec tio n o f th e rights an d
rep u tatio n s o f th e d escen d an ts o f th e victims o f th e A rm enian
g en o cid e.121 C onsequently, th e ECH R h eld th a t th e conviction vio­
lated P erin cek ’s Article 10 rig h t to free expression. O n M arch 11,
2014, Switzerland a n n o u n c e d th a t it w ould exercise its rig h t to
appeal the decisio n .122

115. Id. H 75.

116. See Garaudy v. France, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 369, 397; Perincek, App. No. 27510/08
1 46.
117. Compare, e.g., Ekin Ass’n v. France, 2001-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. 323, 344, 347, with Per­
incek, App. No. 27510/08, « 13, 126
118. Perincek, App. No. 27510/08.
119. Id.
120. Id.
121. Id.
122. Ghazanchyan, supra note 34.
2015 ] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 435

III. A n a ly sis

A. Why the European Union Needs to Amend

the 2008 Framework Decision
T h e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision n eeds to be am en d ed for a n u m ­
b e r o f d ifferen t reasons. First, various sections o f th e legislation
are p h rased in vague a n d overly g en eral term s, w hich m akes it diffi­
cult to assess w hat th e legislation actually requires. Second, the
2008 Fram ew ork D ecision encourages m e m b er states to go beyond
the m in im u m req u irem en ts, w hich, assum ing th e Perincek decision
is u p h e ld o n appeal, is m ost likely im perm issible. Finally, an d m ost
im portantly, th e m inim um req u irem en ts o f th e 2008 Fram ew ork
D ecision are in co m p atib le with the freed o m o f expression p ro ­
tected u n d e r Article 10 o f th e E u ro p ean C onvention o n H u m an
Rights.

1. Sections o f the 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision W ritten in Overly

V ague T erm s
A rticles 1(1) (c) an d 1(1) (d) o f th e 2008 Fram ew ork Decision,
w hich provide th e initial list o f offenses th a t m e m b er states are
req u ire d to crim inalize,123 are vague a n d subject to p o ten tial m isin­
te rp re tatio n . A rticle 1 (1) (c) req u ires th a t m e m b er states take m ea­
sures to ensure th a t “publicly co n d o n in g , denying o r grossly
trivializing crim es o f genocide, crim es against hum anity an d war
crim es” are p u n ish ab le.124 Similarly, Article 1(1) (d) req u ires th a t
m e m b er states take m easures to en su re th a t “publicly co n d o n in g ,
denying o r grossly trivializing th e crim es d efin ed in Article 6 o f the
C h a rte r o f the In tern a tio n a l M ilitary T rib u n al a p p e n d e d to the
L o n d o n A g reem en t o f 8 A ugust 1945” are also p u n ish ab le.125 B oth
articles provide a fram e o f referen ce fo r th e crim es th a t th e public
is p ro scrib ed from co n d o n in g , denying, o r grossly trivializing— the
Statute o f the In tern a tio n a l C rim inal C o u rt126 a n d th e C h arter o f
the In tern a tio n a l M ilitary T rib u n al a p p e n d e d to th e L o n d o n
A greem ent o f 8 A ugust 1945.127 C onsequently, th ere is less o f a
co n cern with defin in g w hat crim es th e legislation is referencing.
However, th e re is n o real in d ication as to w hat constitutes
“grossly trivializing” any o f th e afo rem en tio n ed crim es. W hile

123. 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, art. 1(1)(c)-(l)(d).

124. Id. art. 1(1) (c).
125. Id. art. 1(1) (d).
126. Id. art. 1(1) (c).
127. Id. art. 1(1) (d).
436 The Geo. Wash. In t’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

som e scholars define trivializing a genocide, crim e against h u m a n ­

ity, o r war crim e as m inim izing o r qu estio n in g th e n u m b e r o f vic­
tim s,128 such a d efinition ca n n o t be ap p lied consistently, as
historical research o ften leads to questions reg ard in g th e m ain ­
stream in terp reta tio n o f past events.129 In addition, th e re is no
indication o f th e difference betw een trivializing an act an d grossly
trivializing an act, as th e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision req u ires m em ­
b e r states to crim inalize only gross trivializations.130
T h e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision also fails to provide a defin itio n
for a n u m b e r o f key term s, all o f w hich can be in te rp re te d in vari­
ous ways. For exam ple, Article 1(2), w hich helps set th e floor for
w hat m e m b er states are req u ire d to punish, states th a t “M em ber
States may choose to p u n ish only c o n d u ct w hich is eith e r carried
o u t in a m a n n e r likely to d isturb public o rd e r o r w hich is th re a te n ­
ing, abusive o r in sulting.”131 W hile actions likely to d isturb public
o rd e r o r th re a te n in g actions are som ew hat q u an tifiab le,132 it is
u n clear w hat type o f co n d u ct am o u n ts to “abusive” o r “in sulting,”
as n e ith e r term is d e fin e d .133 A dditionally, the term s “abusive”
a n d “insulting” indicate a lower th resh o ld th a n Articles 1(1) (c)
a n d 1(1) (d ) , w hich refer to c o n d u ct likely to incite violence o r
h a tre d against a g ro u p .134
W hile failing to provide explicit definitions w ould be less o f an
issue in legislation th a t is designed to p ro m o te so m eth in g akin to
econom ic coop eratio n , th e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision was passed,
in part, with the in ten tio n o f “h arm o n isin g EU M em ber States’
pen al laws co n ce rn in g th e d efinition o f crim inal offences an d sanc­
tions, in particu lar form s o f public expressions o f racism a n d xeno-

128. Steven W. Becker, “/ Think Therefore I Am Guilty”: Suppressing Speech and Hijacking
History— The Case Against Criminalizing Hate Speech and Revisionism as Global Policy, 2009
G lobal C omm unity Y.B. I n t ’l L. & J urisprudence 7, 37-38.
129. For a discussion of how “grossly trivializing” has not and cannot be applied con­
sistently in the context of historical research, see id.; Luigi Cajani, Historians Under Criminal
Law, EU Legislation Casts a Shadow on Historical Research, L iberty P o u r l ’H istoire [L iberty7
for H istory ] (N ov. 2, 2009), http://www.lph-asso.fr/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id=124.
130. Knechtle, supra note 11, at 56; Laurent Pech, The Law o f Holocaust Denial in Europe:
Towards a (Qualified) EU-Wide Criminal Prohibition 44 (The Jean Monnet Ctr. for Int’l & Reg’l
Econ. Law & Justice, Working Paper No. 10/09, 2009).
131. 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, art. 1(2).
132. See Pech, supra note 130, at 47; Paolo Lobba, Criminalizing Negationism. Beyond the
Holocaust, L iberte P o u r l ’H isto rie [L iberty fo r history ] (Jan.29, 2013), http://www.lph-
asso.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=l 84.
133. See Lobba, supra note 132.
134. 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, art. 1(1)(c)-(l)(d); Pech, supra note
130, at 44.
2015] Future of Genocide. Denial Laws in European Union 437

phobia, form s th a t are com m only referred to as . . . ‘neg atio n ism ,’”
w hich is a n o th e r term for gen o cid e d en ial.135 Providing m ore
explicit definitions o r narrow ing the scope o f p ro h ib ited co n d u ct
w ould facilitate th e goal o f increased h arm o n izatio n by allowing
m e m b er states to h o n e in o n th e type o f behavior th a t the legisla­
tion in te n d e d to eradicate.
Finally, the E u ro p ean U n io n released a com pliance re p o rt for
the 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision in Jan u ary 2014,136 providing fu rth e r
su p p o rt for the a rg u m e n t th a t th e legislation req u ires fu rth e r clari­
fication. T h e re p o rt outlines w hich m e m b er states have an d have
n o t satisfactorily com plied with th e req u irem en ts o f the 2008
Fram ew ork Decision. T h e re p o rt dem o n strates th a t the least com ­
plied with provisions are Articles 1(1) (c) an d l ( l ) ( d ) . 137 Specifi­
cally, the re p o rt asserts th a t Bulgaria, D enm ark, Estonia, G reece,
Ireland, Spain, C roatia, Italy, Eatvia, Malta, the N eth erlan d s, P o rtu ­
gal, Finland, Sweden, an d the U n ited K ingdom all lack specific
provisions to im p lem en t these p o rtio ns o f the 2008 Fram ew ork
D ecision.138 W hile th e re are a n u m b e r o f plausible explanations
for this developm ent, in clu d in g an aversion to crim inalizing the
denial o f historical events,139 th e u n certain language o f th e 2008
Fram ew ork D ecision itself m ost likely played a role in a n u m b e r o f
m e m b er states’ failure to com ply with th e req u irem en ts o f the leg­
islation, as m any states felt th a t the c u rre n t fo rm u latio n o f th e ir
respective crim inal codes sufficiently com plied with the m inim um
re q u ire m e n ts.140 In sum, the vague language em ployed by the
2008 Fram ew ork D ecision provides o n e reason why th e legislation
m ust be am end ed .

2. A m endm en ts N eed ed to Set C learer B oundaries

F u rth erm o re, th e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision needs to be
a m en d ed because the language o f th e legislation leaves o p en the
possibility for, an d even im plicitly encourages, m e m b er states to go
beyond the m in im u m req u ire m en ts an d take ad d itio n al steps,

135. FRA— E uropean U n io n A gency fo r F undamental R ig h ts , O pinio n o f t h e E uro ­

pean A gency fo r F undamental R ig h ts o n t h e F ramework D ecision o n Racism and X en o ­
pho bia — W it h S pecial A tt e n t io n t o t h e R ig hts o f V ictim s o f C rime 4 (2013)
[h e re in a fte r FRA, O p in io n ],
136. January Report, supra note 32, at 1.
137. See id. at 6.
138. Id.
139. .WJosie Appleton, Freedom for History? The Case Against Memory Laws, F ree S peech
D ebate (Apr. 3, 2013), http://www.freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/freedom-for-histo
ry-the-case-against-memory-laws.
140. See, e.g., January Report, supra note 32, at 6.
438 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

w hich may en cro ach u p o n th e freed o m o f expression. In add itio n

to the vague term inology o f A rticle 1 (2 ),141 Article 1 (4) o f th e 2008
Fram ew ork D ecision states th e following:
[Member states] may . . . make a statement that it will make
punishable . . . the crimes referred to in paragraph 1 (c) a n d /o r
(d) only if the crimes . . . have been established by a final deci­
sion of a national court of this Member State a n d /o r an interna­
tional court, or by a final decision of an international court
only.142
T h e use o f th e w ord “may” seem s to im ply th a t m e m b er states
are p e rm itted to do m o re th a n w hat Article 1(4) req u ires— th a t
m em b er states have th e o p tio n to n o t m ake this statem en t an d
crim inalize th e denial o f acts th a t have n o t b een established as
genocide by a final co u rt d ecision.143 W hile Article 7(1) o f the
Fram ew ork D ecision reinforces th e n o tio n th a t m e m b er states
m ust respect th e freed o m o f expression in the process o f com ply­
ing with th e legislation,144 this n o tio n has n o t p rev en ted certain
m em b er states from going beyond the m inim um req u irem en ts o f
Article 1 (4 ).145 Thus, am en d in g th e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision will
help the E u ro p ean U n io n avoid situations sim ilar to th e o n e
p resen te d in Perincek, w here Switzerland w ent beyond th e m in i­
m um req u irem en ts o f Article 1 (4) an d convicted an individual for
denying a genocide th a t h ad n o t b een established by eith e r a Swiss
o r an in tern atio n al c o u rt.146
A ssum ing th e Perincek decision is u p h e ld o n appeal, it will h elp
clarify the m easures m e m b er states are p erm itted to take in
crim inalizing genocide denial; however, it will n o t necessarily p re ­
clude o th e r m e m b er states from crim inalizing th e d en ial o f the
A rm enian g en o cid e o r any o th e r atrocity th a t is n o t specifically
req u ire d by the legislation. T h e ECH R h eld th a t P erin cek ’s convic­
tion violated his freed o m o f expression only because Switzerland
could n o t d em o n strate a pressing social n e e d fo r th e law.147
A lthough th e EC H R did n o t fin d a pressing social n e e d in Switzer­
la n d ,148 it is conceivable th a t o th e r m e m b er states could dem on-

141. 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, art. 1(2) (“For the purpose of paragraph
1, Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a
manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting.”).
142. Id. art. 1(4).
143. Id.; see Lobba, supra note 132, § 3.2.
144. 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, art. 7(1).
145. Switzerland art. 261, supra note 29.
146. Perincek v. Switzerland, App. No. 27510/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013).
147. Id.
148. Id.
2015] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 439

strate a pressing social n e e d fo r crim inalizing th e denial o f the

A rm enian gen o cid e an d th e Perincek decision w ould n o t b a r them
from attem p tin g to m ake th a t claim. For exam ple, Slovakia passed
a law in 2011 th a t punishes th e denial o f th e A rm enian genocide
with u p to five years im p riso n m en t.149 Slovakia could m ake a claim
th a t it has a pressing social n eed for this law because the A rm enian
genocide rem ains an incredibly sensitive subject fo r A rm enians
an d Turks alike. Slovakia has a significant A rm enian po p u latio n ,
a n d it is closely located to T urkey geographically; thus, Slovakia
could argue th a t th e law is necessary to preserve public o rd e r an d
preserve the rights an d rep u tatio n s o f A rm enians living in
Slovakia.150 M oreover, F rance recently passed a law crim inalizing
the denial o f th e A rm enian g en o cid e.151 A lthough the F rench
C onstitutional C o u rt struck down th e law,152 F rench President,
Francois H ollan d e, has vowed to draft a law th a t pro h ib its the
denial o f th e A rm enian gen o cid e an d does n o t violate the freed o m
o f expression.153 A ssum ing F rance eventually passes such a law, it
could argue th a t th e significant A rm enian p o p u latio n in F rance—
th e re are approxim ately five h u n d re d th o u san d A rm enians living
in F rance co m p ared to approxim ately five th o u san d A rm enians liv­
ing in Sw itzerland154— dem o n strates a pressing social n eed fo r the
law. Given th e fact th a t th ere are approxim ately o n e h u n d re d
tim es m ore A rm enians in France th an in Sw itzerland,155 France
could argue th a t th e re is a pressing social n e e d to p ro tect the
rights an d rep u tatio n s o f A rm enians in France an d th a t th e re is a
stro n g er claim o f th e law’s necessity fo r preserving public o rd e r.156
A lthough these arg u m en ts may n o t prevail, the overriding p o in t is
th a t the EC H R ’s decision in Perincek, while potentially h elp in g to
clarify w hat is perm issible in this area o f Article 10 concerns, has
n o t definitively settled th e issue, w hich will fru strate the goal o f

149. Slovak Official: Any Turk Denying Armenian Genocide in Slovakia Will Be Jailed, supra
note 67.
150. See European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 68, art. 10; Garaudy v.
France, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 371, 397; cf. Perincek, App. No. 27510/08 (holding that laws
criminalizing denial of Armenian genocide did not pursue the legitimate aim of preserving
public order in Switzerland).
151. French Court Overturns Armenian Genocide Denial Law, CNN (Feb. 28, 2012), h ttp ://
www.cnn.com/2012/02/28/ world/europe/france-armenia-genocide/index.html
152. Id.
153. French President Hollande Vows New Armenia ‘Genocide Law’, BBC N ews E ur . (July 7,
2012), http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18758078.
154. Armenian Population in the World, A rm. D iaspora (N ov. 19, 2014, 6:31 PM), h ttp ://
www.armeniadiaspora.com/population.html.
155. See id.
156. See Garaudy v. France, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 371, 397.
440 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

increased h arm o n izatio n .157 Clarifying th e scope o f th e 2008

Fram ew ork D ecision will h elp en su re th a t m e m b er states resp ect
the b o u n d ary betw een free expression an d perm issible censorship.

3. T h e 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision an d Free Expression

Finally, a n d m ost im portantly, th e 2008 Fram ew ork Decision
should be am e n d e d because m e m b er states w ould have an exceed­
ingly difficult tim e com plying with b o th Articles 1(4) an d 7(1) o f
the 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision u n d e r th e c u rre n t legal fram ew ork.
As discussed above,158 Article 1(4) establishes m inim um req u ire­
m ents for m e m b er states to crim inalize genocide denial an d Article
7(1) req u ires m em b er states to resp ect an individual’s freed o m o f
expression in th e p rocess.159 However, a discussion o f a hyp o th eti­
cal law crim inalizing th e denial o f th e R w andan genocide d em o n ­
strates th a t com plying with b o th Articles 1(4) a n d 7(1) o f th e 2008
Fram ew ork D ecision w ould be ra th e r difficult.
C rim inalizing th e denial o f th e Rw andan genocide ap p ears to
fall w ithin the express m an d ate o f th e 2008 Fram ew ork Decision.
T h e In tern a tio n a l C rim inal T rib u n al for Rw anda was established to
prosecute high-ranking g o v ern m en t officials for genocide, crim es
against hum anity, an d war crim es com m itted in 1994 th a t resu lted
in the d eath o f approxim ately five h u n d re d th o u san d T utsis,160
w hich is o n e o f th e two d o m in a n t eth n ic groups in Rwanda. T he
In tern a tio n a l C rim inal T rib u n al for Rwanda has convicted a n u m ­
b e r o f go v ern m en t officials on charges o f genocide an d crim es
against h um an ity ,161 so th e Rw andan genocide has clearly b een rec­
ognized by an in tern atio n al court. In add itio n , as p e r Garaudy,
m ere denial o f such a crim e can constitute in c item en t to h a tre d ,162
w hich m eans a m e m b er state w ould be req u ire d to pro secu te som e­
one for denying th e R w andan genocide.
A ssum ing an Article 10 defense is n o t b arred by Article 17, which
prohibits an individual from engaging in acts aim ed at th e d estru c­
tion o f th e rights laid o u t in th e E u ro p ean C onvention on H u m an
Rights an d has b een invoked by th e ECHR in H olocaust denial

157. Perincek v. Switzerland, App. No. 27510/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013); see FRA, O p in ­
supra note 135, at 4.
io n ,
158. Supra Part II.
159. 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, arts. 1(4), 7(1).
160. About the ICTR, U nited N a tio n s I n t ’l Crjm. T ribunal for R wanda , http://www
.unictr.org/en/tribunal (last visited Feb. 23, 2015).
161. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgm ent (Sept.
2, 1998).
162. See Garaudy v. France, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 371, 397.
2015] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 441

cases,163 it w ould be difficult to see how a conviction for denying

the Rw andan g en o cid e w ould survive Article 10 scrutiny. A m em ­
b e r state could easily prove th a t th e p u n ish ab le act is p ro scrib ed by
law164 a n d the law w ould be passed fo r a legitim ate pu rp o se, as it
w ould be passed to p ro te c t th e rep u ta tio n an d rights o f survivors
an d the descen d an ts o f victims an d survivors.165 N onetheless, it is
d o u b tfu l th a t th e EC H R w ould find th a t th e law pursues th e legiti­
m ate aim o f preserving public o rd er, as anti-R w andan sen tim en t or
violence is n o t an issue in th e E u ro p ean U n io n .166 For th e same
reason, th e conviction w ould n o t be necessary in a d em ocratic soci­
ety, as a m e m b er state w ould have a difficult tim e d em o n stratin g
th a t denial o f th e Rw andan genocide is th e m ain force b e h in d anti-
Rw andan sentim en t, w hich w ould m ake it difficult to d efen d the
law on the gro u n d s th a t it is necessary to p ro tec t th e rights an d
rep u ta tio n s o f Rw andans living in th e m em b er state.167 W ith o u t a
pressing social n eed , any conviction fo r denying th e R w andan
genocide w ould violate Article 10 regardless o f th e pro p o rtio n ality
o f the se n ten c e.168 As a result, it appears th a t a m e m b er state
w ould e n c o u n te r a significant d eg ree o f difficulty in com plying
with the m inim u m req u irem en ts o f th e 2008 Fram ew ork Decision
while sim ultaneously respecting th e rig h t to free expression.

B. Proposal fo r a Revised Frammork

In striving to d raft a fram ew ork th a t strikes a stro n g er balance

betw een the desire to eradicate gen o cid e denial an d th e p ro tectio n
o f an individual’s rig h t to free expression, th e E u ro p ean U n io n
w ould n o t have to begin anew. Instead, th e E u ro p ean U n io n sim­
ply need s to am en d certain parts o f th e 2008 Fram ew ork Decision.
First, Articles 1(1) (c) an d l ( l ) ( d ) should rem ove the phrase
“grossly trivializing” from th e list o f acts th a t m ust be crim inalized.
T h e a m en d ed provisions w ould only req u ire m e m b er states to
m ake punishab le th e acts o f publicly co n d o n in g o r denying the
crim es listed in Articles 1 (1) (c) an d 1 (1) (d), respectively. This will
allow th e E u ro p ean U n io n to explicitly address H olocaust denial,
w hich was obviously a m otivating factor in this piece o f legisla-

163. See Cannie & Voorhoof, supra note 94, at 55.

164. SeeRekvenyi v. Hungary, 1999-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 423, 441-42.
165. See European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 68.
166. See Perincek v. Switzerland, App. No. 27510/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013) at 32.
167. See id.
168. See supra Part II.
442 The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. [Vol. 47

tion;169 however, it will also remove a degree of the current ambi­

guity regarding what acts m em ber states are actually required to
punish.170 In addition, removing the phrase “grossly trivializing”
would help address the potential chilling factor that raised con­
cerns when the 2008 Framework Decision was initially passed.171
In addition to am ending Articles 1(1) (c) and 1(1) (d), a revised
framework would also have to address Article 1 (2), which provides
m em ber states with the option to criminalize conduct that is threat­
ening, likely to disturb public order, abusive, or insulting.172 Ide­
ally, Article 1(2) would simply be removed from a revised
framework, as the content of Article 1(2) is addressed in Articles
1(1) (c) and 1(1) (d ), which require m em ber states to criminalize
the relevant conduct “when the conduct is carried out in a m anner
likely to incite to violence or hatred.”173 As a result, the options
provided in Article 1(2) only add to the legislation’s ambiguity and
should be removed from a revised framework.174 In the event the
European U nion is hesitant to remove Article 1(2), Article 1(2)
should, at the very least, be am ended to read “M em ber States shall
only punish conduct which is threatening or which is carried out in
a m anner likely to disturb public order.” Narrowing the categories
of criminalized conduct would provide a clearer guideline for the
type of conduct m em ber states should be focusing on and help
further the goal of increased harm onization.175
Finally, and most importantly, Article 1(4) m ust also be
am ended because its current structure makes it exceedingly diffi­
cult for m em ber states to comply with both Articles 1(4) and
7(1).176 The am ended portion would state the following:
Each member state shall make punishable the act of denying or
condoning the crimes referred to in paragraph 1(c) and/or (d)
[revised above] only if the crimes referred to in these
paragraphs have been established by a final decision of an inter­
national court and if the crime occurred within a European
Union member state.

169. See 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, art. 1(1) (d) (explicitly requiring
member states to criminalize Holocaust denial).
170. See infra Part III.
171. Sec Robert M. Hayden, “Genocide Denial" Laws as Secular Heresy: A Critical Analysis
with Reference to Bosnia, 67 Slavic Rev. 384, 384 (2008).
172. See 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, art. 1(2).
173. Id. art. 1(1)(c)-(l)(d).
174. See Hayden, supra note 171, at 385.
175. Cf. FRA, O pinion , supra note 135, at 4 (explaining that the goal of the Framework
decision is to harmonize E.U. Member States’ penal laws).
176. Supra Part III.
2015] Future of Genocide Denial Laws in European Union 443
The revised article would set the floor and the ceiling for what
actions m em ber states are required to take, and limiting the acts to
those that occurred within the European U nion will ensure that, in
this context, any restriction on an individual’s freedom of expres­
sion will survive the ECHR’s Article 10 scrutiny. While an am ended
Article 1 (4) would provide a significant safeguard to an individual’s
freedom of expression, the current iteration of Article 7(1), which
requires m em ber states to respect an individual’s freedom of
expression, would rem ain in the legislation to reiterate the fact
that m em ber states m ust respect this freedom .177 While some may
argue that narrowing the scope in this m an n er indicates that the
E uropean U nion is elevating the H olocaust over other genocides
and crimes against hum anity,178 the revised framework still leaves
open the possibility that m em ber states will be required to punish
the denial of other acts in the future.
The revised framework would allow the European U nion to
address genocide denial through criminal sanctions, and it better
ensures that m em ber states will respect an individual’s freedom of
expression in the process. The revised framework still requires
m em ber states to criminalize Holocaust denial. However, the
revised framework would prevent m em ber states from doing much
beyond this, as the revised framework does no t encompass any of
the following acts: the 1915 Arm enian genocide, the 1932-1933
U krainian famine, the 1845-1852 Irish potato famine, and most
historical events that could theoretically be construed as geno­
cide.179 Furtherm ore, the revised framework omits the Rwandan
genocide, as it did n o t occur within the European Union. Never­
theless, as discussed above, any m em ber state that passed a law
criminalizing the denial of the Rwandan genocide would have a
difficult time dem onstrating a pressing social need u n d er Article
1 0 . 180

C. Future Developments

While the revised framework would require m em ber states to

criminalize only H olocaust denial currently, it leaves open the pos­
sibility that m em ber states may one day have to criminalize denial

177. See Pech, supra note 130, at 48-49.

178. See Lobba, supra note 132, § 2.1; cf Pech, supra note, 130, at 50 (arguing that
current formation of the 2008 Framework Decision normalizes the Holocaust as one,
among many other, genocide).
179. See Hayden, supra note 171, at 403.
180. See supra Part 111.
444 The Geo. Wash. In ti L. Rev. [Vol. 47

o f the Bosnian genocide, w hich includes in cid en ts in th e fo rm er

Yugoslavia th a t took place d u rin g th e B osnian Wars o f th e early
1990s.181 This situation w ould arise if Bosnia-H erzegovina— which
has b een id entified as a p o ten tial can d id ate country fo r ad m ittance
to th e E u ro p ea n U n io n — o r Serbia—w hich is a can d id ate country
for adm ittan ce to th e E u ro p ean U n io n — is, in fact, ad m itted to the
E u ro p ean U n io n .182 A ssum ing b o th these co u n tries are ad m itted
to the E u ro p ean U n io n , th e re is a legitim ate a rg u m e n t th a t m em ­
b er states should be re q u ire d to crim inalize denial o f this genocide
in the sam e m a n n e r th a t crim inalizing H olocaust d en ial is m an ­
d ated by th e c u rre n t legislation.183
T h e In tern atio n al C rim inal T rib u n al fo r th e F o rm er Yugoslavia
has h eld th a t a n u m b e r o f incidents th a t took place d u rin g the
Bosnian Wars, m ost notably the m assacres at Srebenica, qualified
as g en o cid e,184 w hich m eans th a t it w ould fall w ithin the p aram e­
ters o f the revised fram ew ork because it has been recognized by an
in tern atio n al co u rt an d it to o k place w ithin th e E u ro p ean
U n io n .185 As discussed above, an Article 10 defense fo r such a con­
viction w ould m ost likely n o t be b a rre d by Article 17, as the convic­
tion is u n re la te d to th e Nazi reg im e.186 Assum ing an A rticle 10
claim w ould n o t be b arred by Article 17, a conviction fo r denying
the Bosnian genocide w ould likely survive Article 10 scrutiny. A
m e m b er state could easily have th e action p ro scrib ed by law ,187 the
law w ould p u rsu e th e legitim ate aim o f preserving the rep u tatio n s
a n d rights o f th e victims an d th e ir d escen d a n ts,188 an d assum ing
Serbia an d Bosnia-H erzegovina are eventually ad m itted into the
E u ro p ean U nion, th e re is a ra th e r com pelling a rg u m e n t th a t the
law w ould pursue th e legitim ate aim o f preserving public o rd e r.189
Finally, the ECH R w ould m ost likely find th at th e re is a pressing
social n eed , as anti-B osnian sen tim en t is an identifiable issue in

181. See About the ICTY., U n it e d N a t io n s I n t ’l C r im . T r ib u n a l f o r F o r m e r Yu g o sl a ­

http://www.icty.org/sections/AboutthelCTY (last visited Oct. 16, 2014).
v ia ,
182. Countries, E u r o p e a n U n io n , http://w w w .europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_
en.htm (last visited Oct. 16, 2014).
183. See 2008 Framework Decision, supra note 31, art. 1(1) (d).
184. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgment, UU 598-99
(Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Aug. 2, 2001).
185. Supra Part III.
186. Supra Part III.
187. See Rekvenyi v. Hungary, 1999-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 423, 437-38 (1999).
188. European Convention of Human Rights, supra note 68, art. 10(2).
189. See Garaudy v. France, 2003TX Eur. Ct. H.R. 371, 397; cf. Perincek v. Switzerland,
App. No. 27510/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013) at 32 (holding that laws criminalizing denial of
Armenian genocide did not further the legitimate aim of preserving public order).
2015] Future of Genocide Denied Laws in European Union 445

S erbia,190 and, as lo n g as the sen ten ce is n o t excessively severe, the

ECH R will find th a t the in terferen ce with th e freed o m o f expres­
sion is p ro p o rtio n a l.191 C onsequently, th e re w ould be a stro n g case
for u p h o ld in g a conviction for denying th e B osnian genocide
u n d e r Article 10 o f the E u ro p ean C onvention on H u m an Rights.

IV. C o n c l u s io n

C om bating gen o cid e denial with crim inal sanctions poses a

u n iq u e challenge fo r the E u ro p ean U n io n as it has rightfully com ­
m itted itself to providing ro b u st p ro tectio n to an individual’s free­
dom o f exp ressio n ;192 however, those who engage in genocide
denial in the face o f overw helm ing historical evidence are, alm ost
always, m otivated by h a tre d in sp read in g such an ig n o ra n t m es­
sage.193 W hile erad icatin g genocide denial is a laudable goal, the
2008 Fram ew ork Decision provides m inim al g u id an ce for how
m e m b er states sh o u ld crim inalize g en o cid e denial while sim ultane­
ously respectin g an in d ividual’s freed o m o f expression. Clarifying
th e language, rem oving am biguous term inology, an d lim iting the
scope o f the 2008 Fram ew ork D ecision to the H olocaust an d any
o th e r genocide, crim e against hum anity, an d war crim e com m itted
w ithin the E u ro p ea n U n io n an d recognized by an in tern atio n al
co u rt w ould h elp fu rth e r the goal o f increased h arm o n izatio n
while sim ultaneously en su rin g th a t m e m b er states resp ect an indi­
vidual’s freed o m o f expression. Lim iting the crim inalization of
genocide denial to incidents th a t o ccu rred w ithin th e E u ro p ean
U n io n and th a t are recognized by an in tern atio n al co u rt is in no
way m ean t to m inim ize any o f th e afo rem en tio n ed crim es com m it­
ted elsew here in the world. However, recognizing th a t restrictions
o n the freedo m o f expression are perm issible in th e co n tex t o f
genocide denial presents difficult line-draw ing questions th a t offer
n o easy solutions. This proposal is simply an a ttem p t to draw said
line in a m a n n e r th a t allows th e E u ro p ean U nion to properly
address the darkest m o m en ts o f its past while co n tin u in g to p ro ­
vide stro n g p ro tectio n to th e p rin cip le o f free expression
e n sh rin ed in the E u ro p ean C onvention on H u m an Rights.

190. Dzenana Halimovic, Genocide Denial Concern in Bosnia, I nst, for War & P eace
R eporting (Oct. 1, 2010), http://iwpr.net/report-news/genocide-denial-concern-bosnia.
191. Ceylan v. Turkey, 1999-1V Eur. Ct. H.R. 25, 40.
192. European Convention on Human Rights, supra note 68, art. 10(1).
193. See Garaudy, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. at 371.
Copyright of George Washington International Law Review is the property of George
Washington International Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.