Universal jurisdiction in the Netherlands : the right approach but the wrong case? : Bouterse and the 'December murders'

In December 1982, fifteen political opponents of the then military regime in the South American Republic of Surinam were arrested, allegedly tortured and arbitrarily executed on the orders of the Army Commanding Officer, DesirÃÆ'Ã"šÃ‚© Bouterse. Fourteen of the victims had Surinamese nationality and the other was Dutch. Since that time, Bouterse has continued to move freely within Surinam and the Netherlands and is still influential in Surinam domestic affairs. Despite previous attempts by relatives of the victims to initiate proceedings against him in the Netherlands, the Dutch courts have consistently resisted on the basis that the matter was an internal affair of Surinam. However, the situation has recently changed dramatically, with both the Surinam Court of Justice and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal separately determining that Bouterse can now be prosecuted. In Surinam 37 people, including Bouterse, have been charged under national criminal law with involvement in the December Murders. In the Netherlands the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered the public prosecutor in November 2000 to commence proceedings against Bouterse on the basis of universal jurisdiction in response to a new complaint.[1] The findings of the court were based in large part on the opinion of a court appointed expert, Professor John Dugard.[2] Though it represents a ââ"šÂ¬Ã‹Å“breakthroughââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢ in the pursuit of justice in the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appealââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s findings have triggered considerable legal and political debate. Ironically, the concurrent proceedings in both the Netherlands and Surinam may prove self-defeating and it is hoped that the Dutch Supreme Court, which will shortly determine the next stage of the Dutch proceedings, will clarify these issues. This brief note will discuss a number of interesting and as yet unresolved legal and political questions raised by the Amsterdam Court of Appealââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s decision and Professor Dugardââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s advice.