ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BG1477

• Datum uitspraak: 8 juli 2008
• Publicatiedatum: 5 april 2013
• Zaaknummer: 07/10064 (E)
• Instantie: Hoge Raad
• Type: Uitspraak
• Rechtsgebied: Strafrecht
• Uitkomst: Veroordeling
• Procedures: Cassatie
• Rechters: F.H. Koster; A.J.A. van Dorst; W.A.M. van Schendel; W.M.E. Thomassen; H.A.G. Splinter-van Kan
• Vindplaatsen: Rechtspraak.nl

AI samenvatting door Lexboost • Automatisch gegenereerd

Hoge Raad bevestigt veroordeling voor oorlogsmisdaden in Afghanistan

De zaak betreft een cassatieberoep tegen een arrest van het gerechtshof Den Haag waarin de verdachte werd veroordeeld voor gezamenlijke schendingen van de wetten en gebruiken van oorlog, gepleegd tijdens de burgeroorlog in Afghanistan.

Het hof had de verdachte veroordeeld tot een gevangenisstraf van negen jaar wegens gezamenlijke daderschap bij meerdere gewelddaden die ernstige lichamelijke schade veroorzaakten. De Hoge Raad heeft het beroep in cassatie van de verdachte verworpen, waarbij onder meer werd geoordeeld dat het hof terecht de verklaringen van de verdachte, afgelegd bij de Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, mocht gebruiken zonder schending van het nemo tenetur-beginsel en het recht op privacy.

De Hoge Raad zag geen aanleiding om het arrest van het hof te vernietigen en bevestigde daarmee de strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid van de verdachte voor oorlogsmisdaden onder de Wet Oorlogsstrafrecht. Het arrest benadrukt de universele jurisdictie van Nederlandse rechtbanken voor schendingen van het oorlogsrecht, ongeacht waar deze zijn gepleegd.

Uitkomst: Het cassatieberoep is verworpen en de veroordeling tot negen jaar gevangenisstraf is bevestigd.

Uitspraak

8 July 2008

Criminal Division

No. 07/10064

Supreme Court of the Netherlands

Judgment

on the appeal in cassation against a judgment of The Hague Court of Appeal of 29 January 2007, number 22/006132-05, in the criminal proceedings against:

[defendant 2], born in [place of birth] on [date of birth] 1946, detained at the time of service of the notice in the Utrecht Custodial Institution, 'Wolvenplein' Remand Prison.

1. The contested judgment

On appeal the Court of Appeal quashed a judgment of The Hague District Court of 14 October 2005 (in so far as subjected to the decision of the Court of Appeal) and sentenced the defendant to nine years' imprisonment for 'joint perpetration of violations of the laws and customs of war where the offence involves the joint commission of acts of violence against a person on more than one occasion' and 'joint commission of violations of the laws and customs of war where the offence involves the joint commission of acts of violence and causes serious bodily injury to another person'.

2. Proceedings in cassation

2.1. The appeal was lodged by the defendant. On his behalf G.G.J. Knoops, attorney-at-law in Amsterdam, submitted written grounds for cassation. This document is attached to this judgment and forms part of it.

Acting Advocate General Bleichrodt submitted an opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.

2.2. The Supreme Court has taken note of the written comments of counsel on the opinion of the acting Advocate General.

3. Assessment of the seventh ground of appeal

3.1. The ground of appeal is directed against the rejection by the Court of Appeal of the defence that the Public Prosecution Service acted in breach of the privilege against self-incrimination (nemo tenetur) enshrined in article 6 ECHR and of the right to respect for private life enshrined in article 8 ECHR by making use in the present case of the statements made by the defendant to the Immigration and Naturalisation Service.

3.2. The ground of appeal cannot result in cassation for the reasons given at point 14 of the opinion of the acting Advocate General attached to this judgment.

4. Assessment of the other grounds of appeal

The grounds of appeal cannot result in cassation. Pursuant to section 81 of the Judiciary (Organisation) Act, no further reasons need be given for this judgment since the grounds of appeal do not raise questions of law that need to be answered in the interests of the uniform application or development of the law.

5. Conclusion

As none of the grounds of appeal can result in cassation and the Supreme Court also sees no grounds on which it could set aside the disputed judgment ex proprio motu, the appeal must be dismissed.

6. Decision

The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal.

This judgment was given by vice-president F.H. Koster as presiding judge and by justices A.J.A. van Dorst, W.A.M. van Schendel, W.M.E. Thomassen and H.A.G. Splinter-van Kan, in the presence of S.P. Bakker, clerk of the court, and pronounced on 8 July 2008.