Back to Editorials Page
A few days ago, Israeli television aired a documentary about war crimes
committed in Sinai by the Israeli army in 1967. The allegations relate
to the execution of 250 unarmed Egyptian POWs by an Israeli unit at the
end of the Six Days War, after the fighting had stopped. Israeli crimes
in 1967 also include war crimes committed against US military personnel
of the USS Liberty on 8 June 1967.
Contrary to what some high-ranking Egyptian officials said last week,
this is not the first time evidence of war crimes committed in Sinai by
the Israeli army is in the Israeli media. Details of war crimes that
took place in Sinai in 1956 and 1967 have been leaking from Israeli
sources for the last 20 years. They range from statements of summary
facts, to quasi-public confessions by ex-army generals describing in
detail the atrocities and pointing to the location of graves. To cite
but one example, in September 1995, retired Israeli General Arieh Biro
admitted that he had executed 49 Egyptian POWs with submachine gun fire
in the 1956 Sinai campaign. In 1995 also, two mass graves were unearthed
in Sinai causing public outrage in Egypt and trouble in Israel.
While the Egyptian government is asking for explanations and trials of
the persons responsible for war crimes, the Egyptian street has every
reason to know its legal rights. Evidence is not the issue. It is
abundant and on Egyptian soil. Tracing public confessions or
quasi-confessions by army generals in Israeli sources would easily lead
to significant evidence admissible before a judicial body. There is also
little doubt about the legal characterisation of the facts as being war
crimes under the Geneva Conventions. The problem lies at a procedural
level, or with the question of jurisdiction. Which national court or
international tribunal can be seized for effective remedy?
Basic principles of criminal law give criminal jurisdiction to the court
of the place of the crime. A court may exercise extraterritorial
jurisdiction if either the victim or the person who committed the crime
are a national of the given legal forum. Accordingly, Egyptian or
Israeli courts have direct jurisdiction to try war crimes in Sinai. In
1995, Israel's Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair said there was no basis
for prosecuting soldiers for offences in 1956 and 1967 because of a
20-year statute of limitations on homicide charges. Israel's only war
crimes law, he noted, related to crimes of genocide or crimes committed
by Nazis during World War II. While the shootings of prisoners of war
were "unlawful and intolerable acts", they were not the kind of crimes
covered by the law on genocide. Obviously, proceedings in Egypt would
only be legally meaningful upon extradition of the persons suspected or
having confessed to committing these crimes -- a very unlikely event.
The Israeli government did no more than promise to investigate the
matter whenever the Egyptian government showed signs of displeasure.
That this conduct is in conformity with state obligations under
international law not to shield persons suspected of war crimes, and to
either prosecute or extradite, is dubious.
In turn, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not an option.
Although the Rome Statute that establishes the court gives jurisdiction
to try war crimes, and although the killing of Egyptian prisoners
clearly falls under the definition of war crimes according to
international criminal law, a double obstacle blocks the possibility of
bringing this case before the court. First, Israel has not signed the
statute of the ICC. On the other hand, the ICC has jurisdiction only
with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of the Rome
Statute. National "universal jurisdiction" laws may be the only viable
option remaining.
Under universal jurisdiction law, a given state's courts would exercise
jurisdiction over persons who have committed serious crimes (war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide), regardless of whether the state
has a link to the crime or not. A 1993 Belgian universal jurisdiction
law allowed survivors and relatives of victims of the Sabra and Shatila
massacre of 1982 to bring proceedings against Ariel Sharon and would
have very well served as the basis for the prosecution of war crimes in
Sinai. Sadly, that law was amended in 2003, its scope seriously
diminished. The Egyptian case might arguably still be brought under the
current law, which gives Belgian courts jurisdiction to try war crimes
if Belgium is required by international treaty to exercise universal
jurisdiction. The Geneva Conventions require member states to exercise
jurisdiction over war crimes that constitute "grave breaches" of the
conventions. The deliberate mass killing of POWs would fall under that
umbrella. Although explicit universal jurisdiction legislation is
otherwise virtually absent, a June 2006 report of Human Rights Watch
entitled Universal Jurisdiction in Europe: The State of the Art
concluded that the principle of universal jurisdiction is alive and well
in Europe. War crimes committed in Sinai in 1956 and 1967 may have a
chance to be prosecuted in countries like Norway, the United Kingdom,
and foremost Spain, where a law passed in 1985 confers broad universal
jurisdiction upon Spanish courts.
In all cases, the exercise of universal jurisdiction remains within the
discretion of national prosecutors and subject to political
calculations. States would typically be nervous about the possibility of
jeopardising foreign relations with states they have economic or
political ties with. On balance, political calculations should include
the risk of harming political relations with states whose citizens have
been victims of unpunished war crimes.
Minimal justice requires the payment of proper financial compensation to
the families of soldiers illegally killed, or to the Egyptian
government. Egypt could sue the Israeli government before the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) for compensation for crimes
committed in violation of international humanitarian law in 1956 and
1967. However, Israel has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of
the ICJ, and therefore the case could only be brought to the ICJ with
the consent of the Israeli government. A request to the court for a
non-binding advisory opinion on the violations of the laws of war that
Israeli committed in Sinai may still be made by the General Assembly of
the United Nations. A similar request led the ICJ to rule on the legal
consequences of the construction of the "apartheid wall" in the occupied
territories.
The Egyptian government is invited to establish a fact-finding
commission to gather physical evidence on war crimes committed in 1956
and 1967. An investigation should also include any possible deviations
from the laws of war by Egyptian soldiers. It is unlikely, however, to
find war crimes imputable to Egyptian soldiers in view of the almost
instantaneous defeat the Egyptian army endured in both wars. The Arab
Lawyers Association and the Egyptian Lawyers Syndicate are both urged to
institute legal proceedings before Spanish and other European courts
that could accept to hear the case, but also before Egyptian courts. The
value of an indictment in absentia should not be underestimated,
in terms of mobilising domestic and foreign public opinion.
* The writer is an assistant lecturer at the Faculty of Law at
Cairo University and JSD candidate at Yale Law School.
