Ref: 66/2010 

On Thursday, 22 July 2010, UK
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced that the British government intends
to give the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) the power to veto the issue
of arrest warrants for universal jurisdiction offences in the UK. The proposal
is the direct result of political pressure applied by the government of Israel,
following the issue of warrants for the arrest of Doron Almog in 2005, and
Tzipi Livni, in 2009. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and
Hickman & Rose Solicitors (UK) have been involved in numerous universal jurisdiction
cases, both in the UK and elsewhere, beginning with a case brought against
Shaoul Mofaz in the UK in 2002.

The proposed change is a purely
political move designed to block the arrest of war criminals, from ‘friendly
countries’ in the UK. It is an effort
intended to grant immunity under the veil of the law. The proposed change sends
out the wrong message to perpetrators, and will lead to the UK being seen as a ‘safe haven’ for
international criminals.

Currently, victims can act quickly
and ask the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of a suspect. They must
submit evidence that the suspect is present in, or intending to travel to, the
UK. The court would only issue an arrest warrant if credible admissible
evidence had been submitted which is to a very high threshold, capable of
proving all elements of the offence, and the personal criminal liability of the
suspect.

Ms. Livni, suspected of having
committed war crimes in Israel’s offensive on the Gaza Strip from 27 December
2008 to 18 January 2009, and others, have alleged that the current system for
arrest warrants is open to “cynical exploitation” by those wishing to make
political points. However, this claim cannot be substantiated. The current
system has not been abused and no single example has
been put forward to show that British judges have failed in their duty to
screen out baseless or poorly evidenced cases, when issuing arrest warrants.

In 1978, Lord
Wilberforce stated that the right to bring private prosecutions is “a valuable
constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of
authority”. Lord Diplock described this right as “a useful constitutional
safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those
authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law.” These words are
equally pertinent today and in this
context.

The UK is subject to a
duty to apply the criminal law uniformly: the proposed amendment could breach
both that obligation, and the UK’s legal obligations arising from the ratification
of, inter alia, the Geneva
Conventions of 1949, and the UN Convention against Torture.

The rule of law must be
respected and enforced equally across the board. As legal representatives of
victims of international crimes, we expect the British Parliament to reject
this attempt to promote the triumph of politics over the law and individuals’
fundamental human rights.

For more information on
universal jurisdiction, see ‘The Principle and Practice of Universal
Jurisdiction: PCHR’s work in the occupied Palestinian territory’ released by
PCHR in 2010.