By Anna Curry

On 25 November 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard a case brought by the Kingdom of Belgium. Belgium claimed that the Republic of Senegal has failed to promote justice and reconciliation in the case of alleged war criminal Hasséne Habré. The country contends that since 15 years have passed without the prosecution of Habré, he should be extradited to Belgium to be tried in a court of law.

The accused, Hasséne Habré, served as the fifth president of Chad from 1982 to 1990. Habré has been accused of various war crimes while in office, including murder, torture and other crimes against humanity. He was ousted from office in 1990 and fled to the Republic of Senegal, where he was granted political asylum and remains under house arrest. 

Belgium asserts that Article 5 of the UN Charter allocates the rights to their nation for extradition and prosecution of Hasséne Habré due to the numerous Belgian citizens who were victims of Habré’s alleged acts and crimes. Advocate Olivia Diericks of Belgium said, “Senegal has made it clear that they do not have the security, legislative or judicial bandwidth to take on… a fair and free prosecution trial.” Because of this, Belgium believes that it is better suited to try this case in its own court system.

The advocate of Senegal argued three main points in defense of Senegal’s claims. First, the ICJ lacks jurisdiction in this case because no genuine dispute exists between the two parties and the African Union has already made a recommendation for Habré’s trial to remain in Senegal. Second, Senegal claims that it has acted in good faith by taking significant legal and procedural steps toward prosecuting Habré. Finally, according to Senegal’s written Memorial, “Belgium’s application attempts to interfere with Senegal’s sovereignty and the African Union’s adjudicative role, thus disregarding the importance of regional adjudication of international crimes.”

After deliberations, the ICJ issued their ruling. The majority opinion stated “The Court acknowledges Senegal’s inability and evident unwillingness to administer sufficient justice over war criminal Hasséne Habré in a reasonable timeframe.” In addition, the majority opinion cited Senegal’s decision to hold Habré under house arrest for years without a fair trial violated his basic human rights.

Two separate dissenting opinions were issued regarding the case. The first, signed by Justice Evans and Justice Deinek, concluded that Belgium did not provide the Court with sufficient evidence that it would be better able to prosecute Habré. In addition, the justices were not convinced that Belgium presented substantial evidence that Senegal would be unable to move forward with the prosecution. 

The second dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Houston of Malta. In the dissent, Justice Houston asserted that Senegal did breach its obligations under Article 7(1) “by failing to prosecute Habré in a timely and effective manner.” However, the Justice also contended that extradition of the alleged offender from Senegal to Belgium may not be the most appropriate approach of action.

The ICJ ruled in favor of the Kingdom of Belgium by a vote of 12 for and three dissent.