sou · H6B387 · 2019-01-01 00:00:00 — För brott som begåtts utanför föreslås svensk domstol vara behörig att döma om brottet har begåtts ombord på ett svenskt fartyg eller luftfartyg eller i tjänsten av befälhavaren eller någon som tillhörde besättningen på ett svenskt fartyg eller luftfartyg. En ny bestämmelse föreslås, varigenom svensk domstol är behörig att döma för brott som har begåtts på en inrättning i ekonomiska zon eller på svensk del av kontinentalsockeln. Liksom är fallet ska svensk domstol vidare vara behörig att döma för brott som har begåtts utomlands av någon som vid gär- ningstillfället var svensk medborgare eller hade hemvist i eller när åtal väcks för brottet har förvärvat svenskt medborgarskap eller tagit hemvist i . De tidigare gällande bestämmelserna om svensk domsrätt för brott som begåtts av personer som är med- borgare i något annat nordiskt land föreslås inte föras in i den nya lydelsen av 2 kap. . Inte heller föreslås någon bestäm- melse om domsrätt över brott, på vilket kan följa fängelse , som begåtts av utlänning som finns här i landet. Svensk domstol föreslås dessutom vara behörig att döma för brott som riktat sig mot ett svenskt enskilt intresse. Därmed avses en svensk medborgare eller någon annan som har hemvist i , liksom en svensk juridisk person. Domsrätt ska också föreligga för brott som riktat sig mot ett svenskt allmänt intresse. Så är fallet för brott som riktat sig mot rikets säkerhet, allmän verksamhet eller annat av rättsordningen sär- skilt skyddat svenskt intresse. Dessutom ska svensk domstol vara behörig att döma över brott som har begåtts i utövningen av tjänst eller uppdrag som innefattar allmän ställning. Vidare föreslås svensk domstol vara behörig att döma för brott som har begåtts av någon som befinner sig i om en främ- mande stat har begärt att lagföring för brottet ska överföras hit. Det- samma ska gälla om en begäran om utlämning eller överlämnande för brottet har lämnats utan bifall. Domsrätt föreslås också föreligga om brottet omfattas av en internationell överenskommelse eller annan förpliktelse som är bindande för och enligt vilken det före- ligger en skyldighet att utan undantag pröva frågan om åtal om den misstänkte inte utlämnas eller överlämnas. För vissa brott gäller svensk domsrätt även utan krav på att brottet har någon särskild anknytning till . Så ska vara fallet, liksom enligt gällande rätt, för folkmord, brott mot mänskligheten och krigsförbrytelser. Även för merparten av de brott som är reglerade i 2 kap. 3 § 6 ska svensk domsrätt föreligga. En ny bestämmelse föreslås varigenom slås fast att svensk domstol är behörig att döma över gärningar som omfattas av tortyrbegreppet enligt artikel 1 i FN:s konvention mot tortyr och annan grym, omänsk- lig eller förnedrande behandling eller bestraffning, och för försök till sådant brott. Bestämmelsen i 2 kap. 3 § 7 om behörighet att döma för brott för vilka det lindrigaste straffet enligt svensk rätt är fäng- else eller därutöver föreslås bli upphävd. Det huvudsakliga skälet härför är att det inte bedöms vara ett berättigat intresse för att svensk domstol ska kunna döma över brott som helt saknar anknytning till i andra fall än då det är fråga om allvarliga brott mot den internationella rätten. För domsrätt över brott som begåtts utanför gäller som huvudregel krav på s.k. dubbel straffbarhet. Svensk behörighet före- ligger således som regel endast om gärningen är straffbar även enligt lagen på gärningsorten. Vissa undantag föreslås dock, bl.a. i de fall då det är fråga om brott för vilka det lindrigaste straff som är före- skrivet enligt svensk lag är fängelse . En ny bestäm- melse införs, varigenom slås fast att om ett brott har begåtts på flera staters område, är kravet på dubbel straffbarhet uppfyllt om gärningen är straffbar enligt lagen på åtminstone en av de andra gärningsorterna. För brott som begåtts utanför ska som huvudregel, liksom är fallet , krävas att åtalsförordnande meddelas. I vissa undan- tagsfall ska också krävas åtalsförordnande för brott som begåtts i . Ansvaret för prövningen av åtalsförordnande ska i merparten av fallen åvila riksåklagaren. I vissa undantagsfall, som typiskt sett kan komma att innefatta överväganden av utrikes- eller säkerhetspolitisk innebörd, ska dock regeringen ha exklusiv kompetens att pröva frågan om åtalsförordnande. Så ska vara fallet, förutom vad avser aggres- sionsbrottet, bl.a. för brott som begåtts i av en utlänning i viss tjänst som innefattar allmän ställning hos en annan stat eller en mellanfolklig organisation. För brott som har begåtts utomlands av en svensk medborgare eller en utlänning med hemvist i får riksåklagaren överlämna prövningen till en annan allmän åklagare. För riksåklagarens prövning ställs ett antal bedömningskriterier upp. Vid prövningen ska särskilt beaktas om ett åtal här i riket är förenligt med folkrättsliga förpliktelser, i vilken utsträck- ning brottsligheten eller den misstänkte har anknytning till , om åtgärder för lagföring har inletts eller kommer att inledas i en annan stat eller vid en internationell domstol och vilka faktiska möj- ligheter det finns att utreda brottet och lagföra den misstänkte i . Om det finns anledning att anta att prövningen har särskild be- tydelse för utrikes- eller säkerhetspolitik, ska ärendet alltid överlämnas till regeringen för beslut. Kriminaliseringen av aggressionsbrottet i svensk rätt kan innebära kostnader för utredningar om sådana brott, för efterföljande rätts- processer och för kriminalvård i anstalt. Antalet aggressionsbrott som behöver hanteras av svenska myndigheter kommer dock med största sannolikhet att bli ytterst få. De kostnader som kan uppkomma till följd av kriminaliseringen av aggressionsbrottet bör därför kunna rymmas inom befintliga anslag. Utredningens förslag till ny lydelse av 2 kap. kom- mer sannolikt att kräva vissa utbildningsinsatser för de personer som har att tillämpa bestämmelserna. Kostnader för utbildning ryms dock regelmässigt inom myndigheters allmänna anslag, varför även den utbildning som kan komma att krävas får rymmas inom befintliga kost- nadsramar. I övrigt bedöms utredningens förslag inte få några konsekvenser av de slag som anges i kommittéförordningen (1998:1474). The Statute of the International Criminal Court (Statute, 2002:59) established the International Crimi- nal Court (ICC) as a permanent institution for prosecution of indi- viduals for the most serious international crimes. signed the Statute on 7 October 1988 and deposited its instrument of ratification with the UN Secretary General on 28 2001. The Statute has undergone important changes in recent years. The Inquiry has been tasked with considering and taking a position on whether should accede to the amendments to the Statute adopted at a Review Conference in in 2010 (the amendments), including amendments that enable the ICC to exercise its jurisdiction regarding the ‘crime of aggression’, but only after a separate decision had been taken to activate its jurisdiction. That decision was made in . The remit of the Inquiry also includes taking a position on whether should accede to the amendment adopted in 2015 regarding Article 124 of the Statute. Moreover, certain amendments were adopted in concerning the Statute's regulation of war crimes (Article 8). The question of whether should also ratify these amend- ments has been considered as part of the Inquiry’s remit. In 2018 the Inquiry presented its interim report The crime of aggression and amendments to the Statute, SOU 2018:33. In that interim report the Inquiry proposed that should ratify the amendments, the 2015 amendment to Article 124 and the 2017 amend- ment to Article 8. Ratification of the amendments regarding the crime of aggression means that the Act on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court (2002:329) has to be amended so that the existing provisions of the Act regarding, for instance, the possi- bility of surrendering persons suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the ICC will also apply to the crime of aggression. A legislative amendment to that effect was proposed in the Inquiry’s interim report. The Inquiry’s remit also includes considering and taking a posi- tion on whether possibilities should be introduced into Swedish law to prosecute in persons who have committed crimes of aggression and presenting proposals for the legislative amendments needed in Swedish law to make such prosecutions possible. A further part of the Inquiry’s remit is to carry out a new review and produce updated and coherent preparatory material concerning the rules on Swedish criminal jurisdiction. Work on this part of the Inquiry’s remit has drawn on the report of the Inquiry on Inter- national crimes and Swedish jurisdiction (SOU 2002:98) and on the ministry memorandum Authorisation to prosecute under Chapter 2 of the Swedish Penal Code (Ds 2014:13). The latter two parts of the Inquiry’s remit – a possible criminali- sation of the crime of aggression and the rules about Swedish crimi- nal jurisdiction – are considered in this final report. The crime of aggression in Swedish law The main content of the crime of aggression Article 5 of the Statute states that the ICC has jurisdiction with respect to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The original wording of the Statute contained a definition of the first three of these, while the crime of aggression was not defined in the Statute when it was adopted. When the Statute came into being, the ICC was not given the power to exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime either. The question of the detailed framing of the crime of aggression has long been considered to be controversial from several different perspectives. They have included the question of how wide the definition of the crime of aggression should be and what rules should apply to jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Since the States Parties were unable to agree on the detailed framing of the crime of aggression when the Statute came into being, the solution was to point out in the Statute that the crime of aggression falls within the substantive jurisdiction of the ICC, but that an amendment to the Statute was required that defines the crime and sets out the specific conditions for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction with respect to this crime. adopted the amendments that were necessary to enable the ICC to exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime of aggression. The definition of the crime introduced through the amendments consists of two elements. One concerns the act of aggression committed by a state, and the other concerns what acts an individual bears criminal liability for. The defi- nition is set out in Article 8 bis of the Statute. It states that ‘crime of aggression’ means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. The Article states that a crime of aggression can only be committed by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State. This requirement means that it is a crime of leadership. An act of aggression means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. The provision also states that all acts specified in United Nations General resolution 3314 (XXIX) of , qualify as acts of aggression. This can, for instance, involve an invasion or an attack by the armed forces of a State on the territory of another State. The jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the crime of aggression was activated through a separate decision in . In conjunction with this, the States Parties to the Statute agreed that its jurisdiction will be limited in that only a State Party in respect of which the amendments regarding the crime of aggression have entered into force will be covered by the ICC’s jurisdiction with respect to the crime concerned. should criminalise the crime of aggression Preponderance of reasons for criminalising the crime of aggression in Swedish law One starting point for this assessment has been that , as a State Party to the Statute, has undertaken to work for the achievement of the aims underlying the Statute, including the funda- mental norm of international law that states must not launch attacks on other states. Moreover, has long been strongly committed to promoting the development of international humanitarian law and human rights. A criminalisation of the crime of aggression in Swedish law can therefore be seen as a natural continuation of Swedish efforts to counter impunity for the most serious international crimes and of the consistent support shown by for the ICC since its foundation. One important starting point for the activities of the ICC is that national jurisdiction takes precedence over the jurisdiction of the ICC, as long as a national investigation is under way or has been carried out and the national prosecution proceedings are functioning in a satisfactory way. Even though there is no explicit requirement that States Parties introduce national legislation crimi- nalising the crimes with respect to which the ICC has jurisdiction, the Statute is based on the fundamental assumption that both the ICC and individual states have jurisdiction with respect to the crimes covered by the Statute. This has been considered to be a strong reason why, after ratifying the amendments with respect to the crime of aggression, should also introduce national criminal provisions that criminalise this crime. In making this assessment, the Inquiry has also considered what practical im- portance criminalisation by of the crime of aggression can be expected to have, certain security policy aspects and difficulties arising in application of the law with respect to a crime with as strong political overtones as the crime of aggression, as well as drafting aspects and questions of jurisdiction. The Inquiry proposes placing provisions about the crime of aggression in the Act on Criminal Responsibility for Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2014:406), whose name should be changed The Act on Criminal Responsibility for Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2014:406) was adopted so as to enable to prosecute persons for the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the same extent as is possible at the ICC. That Act criminalises these crimes in Swedish law. Certain inchoate forms of crimes such as attempt, preparation or conspiracy to commit a crime and failure to reveal or prevent a crime are punish- able under the Act. In criminalising the crime of aggression in Swedish law, it is appropriate to place the penal provisions regarding this crime in this Act, whose name the Inquiry proposes changing to the Act on Crimes. elements of the crime of aggression in Swedish law The proposed provisions on the crime of aggression in Swedish law adhere closely to the regulation of the crime in the Statute. Thus only a person who can exercise control of or direct the political or military action of a State can be convicted of a crime of aggression. The crucial factor in determining whether a person belongs to the group being referred to is the perpetrator’s actual possibility of exercising control of or directing the action of the attacking State, while a person’s formal position or professional rank is not decisive. For consideration to be given to guilt of a crime of aggression, the Inquiry proposes that a person specified above has to plan, pre- pare, initiate or execute an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. An act of aggression is proposed to mean the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, in a that is inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. It is pro- posed that the list of acts of aggression in Article 8 bis of the Statute should provide guidance in the examination of whether there is an act of aggression, but not be included in the Swedish criminal provisions on crimes of aggression. The Inquiry proposes making attempt, preparation and conspiracy to commit a crime of aggression punishable, along with failure to reveal or prevent such a crime. The restriction that only a person who can exercise control of or direct the political or military action of a State can be convicted of a crime also applies to these inchoate forms of the crime of aggression. The penalty for a crime of aggression is proposed to be imprison- ment for a set period, at least four years and at most eighteen years, or for life. The crime of aggression should not be covered by the statute of limitation rules. Jurisdiction and authorisation to prosecute with respect to the crime of aggression The Inquiry proposes Swedish courts should have largely the same jurisdiction as the ICC to hear cases of crimes of aggression. So there should be jurisdiction with respect to crimes where the act of aggression that forms the basis for the crime has been committed by a State with respect to which the amendments regarding the crime of aggression have entered into force. In certain cases, how- ever, there should be unlimited Swedish jurisdiction, i.e. irrespective of whether or not the State that has committed the act of aggression has ratified the amendments. This is the case if the crime of aggression has a strong connection to , which is, for in- stance, so if the crime has been committed in or by a person who was, at the time of the crime, a Swedish citizen or habitually resident here, as well as if the crime was aimed at a Swedish interest. The Inquiry proposes placing the jurisdiction rules for the crime of aggression in the Act on Criminal Responsibility for Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2014:406), (to be called the Act on Crimes after the proposed change of name), while jurisdiction with respect to the other crimes in the Statute should continue to be regulated in Chapter 2 of the Penal Code. Before a prosecution can be brought for a crime of aggression, the Government must have issued authorisation to prosecute. Starting points for the Inquiry's deliberations The central provisions on Swedish criminal jurisdiction are set out in Chapter 2 of the Penal Code. These provisions have been amended and supplemented on a large number of occasions and the regulations have been considered to be badly arranged and complicated. There are also a number of provisions about jurisdiction in special criminal legislation. One explicit starting point for the Inquiry’s deliberations and its proposals for a coherent and easily applied regulation of criminal jurisdiction is the above-mentioned report of the Inquiry on International Criminal (SOU 2002:98) and ministry memoran- dum (Ds 2014:13). The Inquiry’s proposal brings together the general provisions on criminal jurisdiction in Chapter 2 of the Penal Code, which is given a new wording and the new heading On the jurisdiction of Swedish courts. The provisions on jurisdiction are framed on the basis of the connection principles of international law. To the extent that the provisions on jurisdiction in special crimi- nal legislation are judged to be necessary, they should be retained; in other cases the general provisions in Chapter 2 of the Penal Code should be applied. New wording of Chapter 2 of the Penal Code Jurisdiction with respect to offences committed in The territoriality principle, i.e. the principle that a State has jurisdiction with respect to offences committed on its own territory, has a special status in international law as a basis for national jurisdiction. Based on this principle, Swedish courts should have jurisdiction with respect to offences committed in , as is the case under the current law. Rules about localising offences, and about offences of omission, are also added to the provision about jurisdiction with respect to offences committed in . In addition, provisions are also intro- duced about the localisation of offences that constitute complicity in another person’s offences. Jurisdiction with respect to offences committed outside For offences committed outside the Inquiry proposes that Swedish courts should have jurisdiction if the offence was com- mitted on board a Swedish ship or aircraft by the commander or a crew member of a Swedish ship or aircraft in the course of their duty. A new provision is proposed to the effect that Swedish courts have jurisdiction with respect to offences committed on an in the Swedish economic zone or on the Swedish part of the conti- nental shelf. As is the case at present, Swedish courts should also have juris- diction with respect to offences committed abroad by a person who, at the time of the offence, was a Swedish citizen or was habitually resident in or had, when a prosecution was brought for the offence, acquired Swedish citizenship or become habitually resident in . It is proposed that the previously applicable provisions about Swedish jurisdiction with respect to crimes committed by per- sons who are citizens of another Nordic country not be included in the new wording of Chapter 2 of the Penal Code. is a provision proposed about jurisdiction with respect to offences that can result in imprisonment for more than six months committed by an alien who is in this country. It is also proposed that Swedish courts should have jurisdiction with respect to offences aimed at a Swedish private interest. This means a Swedish citizen or someone else who is habitually resident in , as well as a Swedish legal person. There should also be jurisdiction with respect to offences aimed at a Swedish public interest. This is the case for offences aimed at national security, public activities or any other Swedish interest given special protection by the legal system. Swedish courts should also have jurisdiction with respect to offences committed in the exercise of a post or an assignment comprising a public position. It is also proposed that Swedish courts should have jurisdiction with respect to offences committed by someone who is in if a foreign state has requested that prosecution of the offence be transferred to . The same should apply if a request for extra- dition or surrender for the offence has not been granted. The Inquiry also proposes that there should be jurisdiction if the offence is covered by an international agreement or other commitment that is binding on under which there is an obligation to examine, without making any exception, the question of prosecution if the suspect is not extradited or surrendered. In the case of certain offences there is Swedish jurisdiction even without any particular connection to being required. This should be the case, as it is under the law at present, for the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. There should also be Swedish jurisdiction for the majority of the offences currently regulated in Chapter 2, Section 3, point 6 of the Penal Code. The Inquiry proposes a new provision laying down that Swedish courts have jurisdiction with respect to acts covered by the term torture under Article 1 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and to attempts to commit these offences. The Inquiry proposes abolishing the provision in Chapter 2, Section 3, point 7 of the Penal Code on jurisdiction with respect to offences for which the least severe penalty prescribed in Swedish law is imprisonment for four years or longer.