COMMENTARY: Rwanda genocide case tests international reach of Finnish law

print this

By Mikko Paakkanen
     
     Finland is currently testing how far from the country's own borders the arm of Finnish law will reach.
     The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) arrested a Rwandan citizen last week, and Porvoo District Court remanded him in custody on suspicion of taking part in genocide in his country in 1994.
     
For the first time, Finland is using so-called universal jurisdiction, which allows a country to handle crimes committed by foreigners abroad according to its own laws, in a case involving suspicion of such a serious crime.
     Universal jurisdiction, which is based on international treaties, applies to only a few serious crimes, such as genocide, which the Rwandan man in Finland is suspected of committing. Genocide refers to acts aimed at entirely or partially destroying an ethnic group.
     
The link between the suspected crime and Finland is that the suspect happens to be in Finland. Now that the investigation has started, it is likely that Finland will have to complete it as well.
     According to the international treaty on genocide, Finland could avoid the process by extraditing the suspect to another country where the allegations could be investigated.
     He could be extradited only if some other country were to request that it do so. The request could come from Rwanda, or from the international Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which operates in Tanzania.
     Such a request seems unlikely.
     The court in Tanzania is unlikely to want the man, as it is phasing out its operations, and has sought to move cases that it already has to other countries.
     
Rwanda might request extradition. However, its interest in the matter could be diminished by the fact that the country's system of justice is already overflowing with genocide cases. There have been more than 100,000 suspects in Rwanda.
     For anyone to be sent to Rwanda, Finland would have to receive guarantees that the person in question would not face the death penalty, torture, or other inhumane treatment.
      Thomas Elfgren of the NBI says that the case will proceed as if the crime had been committed in Finland. The preliminary investigation will seek the kind of evidence that would be admissible in the Finnish legal system.
     Evidence in the events that took place 13 years ago would probably have to be sought in Rwanda or in a neighbouring country. Finding possible eyewitnesses may prove difficult.
     The investigation might stop in its early stages. For instance, if the police cannot be certain that the person that they are holding is the same man who is claimed to have taken part in the killings in Rwanda in 1994.
     If reliable evidence pointing to the guilt of the suspect is found in the pre-trial investigation, the possibility of pressing charges will be investigated. In an international crime such as this one, moving ahead with possible charges would also require an order from the office of the Prosecutor General.
     If the matter ever reaches court, witnesses will probably have to be brought in from Rwanda to testify here. The suspect will also have to be given the possibility to present questions to the suspect.
     
In spite of the difficulties it is possible to apply European law to the Rwanda genocide. At least Belgium and Switzerland have shown this to be the case.
     In courts of those countries charges have been filed on the basis of universal jurisdiction against a total of seven people on participation in the Rwanda genocide. At least some of them have been convicted.
      Investigations linked with the Rwanda genocide are also underway in Norway, Denmark, Britain, The Netherlands, and France.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 12.4.2007


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Finland holds Rwandan man suspected of involvement in genocide (10.4.2007)

MIKKO PAAKKANEN / Helsingin Sanomat
mikko.paakkanen@hs.fi