TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): Voilà, maintenant, je vous prie de bien vouloir passer la parole à mon collègue et de me redonner la parole pour une dernière observation de mon intervention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci, M. Schürmann.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci, M. Meier.
GR1 (Government): Monsieur le Président, Mesdames, Messieurs les juges, je vais d'abord aborder la question de monsieur le juge Wojciech par rapport aux modalités d'exécution du jugement éventuel suisse en Tunisie.
GR1 (Government): Comme la cité le requérant, le Code de droit international privé de la Tunisie connaît l'exigence de réciprocité et en l'espèce, cette réciprocité ne serait pas donnée.
GR1 (Government): Je cite l'article 149, aligné à 2, lettre F de la loi suisse sur le droit international privé, une décision étrangère est reconnue en matière d'obligation délectuelle lorsqu'elle a été rendue au lieu de l'acte, au lieu du résultat, et que le défendeur n'était pas domicilié en Suisse.
GR1 (Government): Supposons donc des atrocités commises en Suisse par un agent domicilié en Suisse et un jugement rendu en Tunisie sur un fort de nécessité tunisien ne pourraient pas être reconnus en Suisse parce que ces exigences de compétence indirecte ne seraient pas reconnues, ne seraient pas remplies.
GR1 (Government): Donc il n'y a pas de réciprocité dans ce cas et un jugement suisse, en notre cas, ne pourrait pas être reconnu en Tunisie.
GR1 (Government): Ensuite, la 2e question par rapport aux liens entre la compétence et le droit applicable.
GR1 (Government): Le gouvernement suisse confirme ici ce qu'a dit le requérant.
GR1 (Government): Il n'y a pas de lien entre la compétence et le droit applicable et il n'y a pas non plus de lien entre la compétence juridictionnelle et la compétence législative sur le fond, sur le droit matériel.
GR1 (Government): Et en l'espèce, il n'y a pas de compétence juridictionnelle et il n'y aurait pas de compétence législative pour régler de telles affaires.
GR1 (Government): Ensuite, je passe aux questions de M. le juge Dédof.
GR1 (Government): D'abord, par rapport au champ d'application de l'article 3 LDIP.
GR1 (Government): En effet, le champ d'application, il est général.
GR1 (Government): Il n'est pas limité à des questions de droit de la famille.
GR1 (Government): Mais d'après la systématique du droit international privé telle qu'elle est connue en Europe depuis le 19e siècle, je cite ici Pasquale Mancini, Etienne Bartin ou bien encore Frédéric Kalf von Savigny, il faut toujours chercher, pour chaque constellation, le siège de cette affaire.
GR1 (Government): Pour, par exemple, un immeuble, c'est le lieu de situation de l'immeuble.
GR1 (Government): Pour le droit de la famille, c'est notamment la nationalité, parce que le droit de la famille continue à être étroitement forgé par des concepts nationaux.
GR1 (Government): Et ce que je veux dire par là, c'est qu'on ne peut pas faire de parallélisme entre un critère de rattachement retenu dans un domaine du droit et l'extrapoler et l'appliquer à un autre domaine du droit.
GR1 (Government): Il n'y a pas ce parallélisme.
GR1 (Government): Donc, c'est pas parce qu'on a retenu un critère en droit de la famille qu'on pourrait l'appliquer en matière d'actes illicites.
GR1 (Government): Je reprends les 4 exemples cités par le requérant.
GR1 (Government): D'abord, en matière de droit de la famille, comme je l'ai dit, c'est fortement forgé par les concepts nationaux.
GR1 (Government): Par exemple, en Suisse, on oblige les ressortissants suisses à inscrire un partenariat enregistré dans le registre d'Etat civil suisse.
GR1 (Government): Si on les oblige à l'inscrire, alors il faut aussi leur offrir un fort.
GR1 (Government): Mais ce n'est pas du tout le cas.
GR1 (Government): Ce n'est pas du tout le cas en matière d'actes illicites.
GR1 (Government): Ensuite, en ce qui concerne l'action en constatation négative de dette, il s'agit là d'une particularité du droit suisse.
GR1 (Government): Chacun peut saisir les autorités de poursuite en Suisse pour intenter une poursuite contre quelqu'un qui est domicilier en Suisse.
GR1 (Government): Et après cela, il y a un inversement des rôles procéduraux.
GR1 (Government): Le débiteur devient celui qui doit demander que l'action ne soit pas poursuivie.
GR1 (Government): Donc il y a un inversement des rôles procéduraux.
GR1 (Government): Et si effectivement, c'est le demandeur qui peut saisir les tribunaux de son domicile, en réalité, dans l'aspect matériel, il s'agit du débiteur.
GR1 (Government): Donc dans une procédure ordinaire, ce serait le défendeur.
GR1 (Government): Et bien sûr, le domicile du défendeur est reconnu partout au monde, mais pas le domicile du demandeur.
GR1 (Government): Donc c'est bien une particularité suisse.
GR1 (Government): L'autre exemple cité en matière de droit de la famille, les requérants n'ont pas mentionné que dans ce cas cité en matière de droit de la famille et de protection des enfants, le divorce avait été prononcé en Suisse, la mère était suisse et l'enfant aussi était suisse.
GR1 (Government): C'est donc pas du tout comparable.
GR1 (Government): Et finalement, encore, le partage des avoirs de prévoyance professionnelle, je ne vais pas vous expliquer le système de la sécurité sociale en Suisse, je dis juste, c'est une particularité suisse qui est inconnue à l'étranger, donc il faut prévoir un fort en Suisse parce qu'un juge étranger ne pourrait pas partager les avoirs de prévoyance professionnel, puisque ce système n'est simplement pas connu à l'étranger.
GR1 (Government): Alors il faut prévoir un fort pour cela en Suisse.
GR1 (Government): Cela me ramène à la conclusion.
GR1 (Government): Ces exemples montrent bien qu'il s'agit là de lacunes pour lesquelles le législateur n'avait pas prévu de fort et l'article 3 permet de combler ces lacunes.
GR1 (Government): Et cela démontre la vraie nature de cet article 3.
GR1 (Government): Le législateur, à l'époque, il essayait de prévoir et de régler de façon exhaustive toutes les questions au droit international privé, dans cette loi sur le droit international privé, or il savait qu'il n'en est pas à pouvoir régler toutes les questions, donc il a prévu une soupape de sécurité, cet article 3 LDIP.
GR1 (Government): Pour justement lui permettre de régler certaines lacunes qui allaient peut-être survenir plus tard.
GR1 (Government): Les 4 exemples qu'on a cités, ce sont des exemples de lacunes.
GR1 (Government): Or le cas présent ici, ce n'est pas une lacune, c'est plutôt un silence qualifié.
GR1 (Government): Car si on lit les débats parlementaires, on a bel et bien discuté de cas comparables.
GR1 (Government): Mais après ces débats parlementaires, on a dit non, on ne veut pas offrir en Suisse un fort pour tout le monde.
GR1 (Government): Il faut que la cause, et je répète et j'insiste, la cause est un lien avec la Suisse, et ceci n'est pas le cas en l'espèce.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Meier.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Monsieur Schürmann, please.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Je vous en prie.
GR2 (Government): Il m'importe de faire une dernière brève observation.
GR2 (Government): Les intentions du requérant et de ses représentants, directeur et vice-président de l'organisation Trial International, sont louables.
GR2 (Government): En même temps, les arguments invoqués par la partie adverse se basent plutôt sur des avis et propositions qui ne sauraient être considérés comme juridiquement contraignants.
GR2 (Government): Il y a beaucoup de wunschdenken, de wishful thinking, dans cette argumentation.
GR2 (Government): L'engagement des représentants du requérant, encore une fois, pour la bonne cause, mérite respect.
GR2 (Government): Pour atteindre le but visé, il faudrait des bases légales solides.
GR2 (Government): Aujourd'hui, elles font défaut.
GR2 (Government): Pour les créer, il faudrait, en droit interne, une décision délibérée du législateur établissant un fort de nécessité dans le sens postulé et, ou en droit international, un consensus suffisamment large de la communauté des Etats.
GR2 (Government): Aujourd'hui, nous sommes loin dans tel consensus.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délibérer sur la recevabilité le fonds.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of Vasiliauskas against Lithuania.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on the 30th of July, 2005, under Article 34 of the Convention by Lithuanian national, Mr. Vytautas Vasiliauskas.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on the 16th of June, 2009.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 17th of September, 2013, the chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 12th of March, 2014, the president of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the government of the Russian Federation to submit written comments as a third party by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The respondent government are represented by their acting agent, Miss Karolina Bubnytė, assisted by Mr. William A. Schabas, professor
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): at Middlesex University Council, and by Miss Lina Urbaitė, chief expert at the Ministry of Justice Advisor.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Šarūnas Vilčinskas,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would also like to welcome the delegations of Albanian judges, Polish judges, Russian judges, and Serbian magistrates.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Miss Bubnytė and Mr. Schabas for the government
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): will speak first, and then Mr. Vilčinskas for the applicant.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Russian has been authorized for the benefit of a group of judges from the Russian Federation who are on a study visit to the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Miss Bubnytė.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, honorable judges of the court,
GR2 (Government): the applicant in the present case, Vytautas Vasilauskas, was tried and convicted by the Lithuanian courts for the crime of genocide, the gravest of all crimes, for deliberate participation in the planned operation of liquidation of two Lithuanian partisans in 1953.
GR2 (Government): The applicant claims that the Lithuanian criminal law defines the notion of genocide in wider terms than the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as it includes social and political groups.
GR2 (Government): The applicant believes that his conviction for the crime of genocide was incompatible with Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
GR2 (Government): The Lithuanian government, in order to demonstrate that guarantees enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention were respected in the applicant's case, will address two principal aspects.
GR2 (Government): First, whether a definition of genocide and its interpretation comprising national particularities was consistent with the essence of the crime of genocide.
GR2 (Government): And second, whether such an interpretation could have reasonably been foreseen by the applicant at the material time in 1953.
GR2 (Government): Aiming to provide a thorough explanation of the Lithuanian legislator's intent when enacting the crime of genocide into Lithuanian law and the Lithuanian court's interpretation of this crime, the historical context is of utmost importance.
GR2 (Government): I will not repeat here what the Soviet occupation meant for the Lithuanian state and what insurmountable sufferings it brought to its people.
GR2 (Government): The government's written submissions contain relevant well-established historical facts and figures.
GR2 (Government): The evaluation given by the international community upon the atrocities committed by the Soviet authorities is also presented therein.
GR2 (Government): Still, may I remind the Grand Chamber of some relevant circumstances.
GR2 (Government): First of all, I refer to the report of the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I quote, the important feature of communist crimes has been repression directed against whole categories of innocent people whose only crime was being members of these categories.
GR2 (Government): In this way, in the name of ideology, the regimes have murdered tens of millions of rich peasants, kulaks, nobles, bourgeois, Cossacks, Ukrainians, and other groups of repressed nations.
GR2 (Government): Second, I refer to the findings of the historians who have in detail investigated the Soviet repressive structures, finding that the Lithuanians, together with their neighbors, Latvians and Estonians, as well as other nationalities within the Soviet Union, for example, Germans, Ukrainians, Crimea Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, were treated as unreliable nations, doomed to destruction.
GR2 (Government): Third, I refer to the finding of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court that the crimes against Lithuanians were a part of the targeted and systematic totalitarian policy pursued by the USSR, which aimed to destroy the basis of the political nation of Lithuania.
GR2 (Government): It was directed against the most active political and social groups, both resisting occupation and their supporters, civil servants and officials, public figures, intellectuals, and the academic community, farmers, priests, and their families.
GR2 (Government): The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, read in context with other relevant Lithuanian laws, reinforces the conclusion that overall historical, national, and international context has been taken into consideration by the legislator when drafting the composition of a crime of genocide therein.
GR2 (Government): At the same time, the legislator's intent to observe the requirements of international law is obvious.
GR2 (Government): For example, Article 2 of the Law on Liability for Genocide of Residents of Lithuania of 1992, which is still in force today, states that, and I quote, killing or torturing of people of Lithuania, deportation of its residents, which were carried out in Lithuania during the years of the occupation and annexation by the Nazi Germany of the USSR, correspond to the features of the genocide provided for in the norms of international law, end of quoting.
GR2 (Government): These facts speak for themselves in explaining that the Lithuanian legislator, by including social and political groups in the definition of genocide in the Criminal Code, referred to the qualitative genocide of the Lithuanian nation, rather than extending the definition of genocide in the 1948 Genocide Convention to additional forms of political genocide or social genocide, properly so-called.
GR2 (Government): This conclusion is valid first and foremost to a particular group of people, the Lithuanian partisans.
GR2 (Government): Labeling the Lithuanian partisans as merely a political group would be far too narrow.
GR2 (Government): To substantiate this, let me draw your attention to the most important statements and conclusions made by the Lithuanian Constitutional Court in its recent ruling of 18th March, 2014.
GR2 (Government): First, according to the universally recognized norms of international law, the organized armed resistance to the Soviet occupation is to be regarded as a lawful self-defense of the state of Lithuania.
GR2 (Government): Second, according to the Lithuanian laws, the participants of the armed resistance are declared as volunteer servicemen, and their military ranks and the votes are recognized.
GR2 (Government): Third, service to the state of Lithuania was possible during the years of Soviet occupation, only in the structures of the organized armed resistance against the occupation, inter alia, in the movement of the struggle for freedom of Lithuania.
GR2 (Government): And fourth, at the time of the occupation, the Council of the Movement of the Struggle for Freedom of Lithuania constituted the supreme political and military structure and was the sole legal authority within the territory of occupied Lithuania.
GR2 (Government): Against this background, the conclusion was made by the Constitutional Court that in the course of the qualification of the actions against the participants of the resistance to the Soviet occupation as a political group, one should take into account the significance of this group for the entire national group, the Lithuanian nation, which is covered by the definition of genocide according to the universally recognized norms of international law.
GR2 (Government): This is what has been actually done by the Lithuanian courts of general jurisdiction in the applicant's case.
GR2 (Government): In this regard, the decision of the Court of Appeal adopted in the applicant's case is particularly illustrative, and I quote, the chamber also draws attention to the fact that the definition of the Lithuanian partisans, particularly as a political group, like it was defined in the judgment of the first instance court, is in fact debatable and not precise enough.
GR2 (Government): Members of this group also represented the Lithuanian nation, national group.
GR2 (Government): So the genocide was performed according to the criteria of nationality, ethnicity, end of quoting.
GR2 (Government): Overall, the government contend that this case is not about a wider national definition of a crime of genocide.
GR2 (Government): This case is about a specific interpretation of a crime of genocide related to attacks against very specific groups of persons, the Lithuanian partisans, who could be labeled as a political group just because of their common objective to fight for the restoration of Lithuanian independence.
GR2 (Government): The repressive structures of the Soviet Union were aimed at the destruction of this group for its huge significance for the entire Lithuanian nation, so huge that it might have had an impact on the survival of the entire Lithuanian nation.
GR2 (Government): Thus, it should be regarded as covered by the essence of the crime of genocide.
GR2 (Government): Ideas say that the Lithuanian courts would have disregarded the requirements of international law had they not convicted the applicant and let him remain unpunished.
GR2 (Government): While assessing whether the Lithuanian court's interpretation of the crime of genocide could have reasonably been foreseen by the applicant at the material time in 1953, as required under Article VII of the Convention, the case-specific historical context is again of decisive weight.
GR2 (Government): It would be beyond all comprehension to state that the applicant at the material time serving in one of the Soviet repressive organs as an operational agent was not aware that his acts aimed at killing the Lithuanian partisans fit well within the Soviet repression policies directed against Lithuanian nation's resistance to occupation, officially describing such an activity as destruction of bandits, terrorists, bourgeois nationalists, and Nazi collaborators.
GR2 (Government): Given the shortage of time, let me abstain from responding to similar, if not identical, accusations expressed by the Russian Federation participating as the third party in the case, also by the applicant's lawyer.
GR2 (Government): Responses to similar accusations have been given long ago by historians, politicians, and Lithuanian courts.
GR2 (Government): Aiming to answer whether the domestic court's interpretation of the crime of genocide could have reasonably been foreseen by the applicant at the material time, the government note that even if the acts committed by the applicant could have been regarded as lawful under the Soviet law, they nevertheless constituted the crime of genocide under international law at the time of their commission.
GR2 (Government): After a few minutes, Professor Schabers will discuss the state of international law at the time in order to demonstrate the forcibility of criminal prosecution of the applicant's conduct.
GR2 (Government): While I would like to address one more aspect of the present case, I refer to the principle of subsidiarity that underpins the whole convention system.
GR2 (Government): International law sets minimum standards for human rights.
GR2 (Government): The convention system is cherished for its ability to take into consideration diverse social, political, cultural, and legal traditions, moral convictions, historical experience, peculiar to each member state.
GR2 (Government): Instead of blindly imposing uniform European standards of human rights, we believe that Lithuanian courts should not be reproached for the interpretation of a concept of genocide, taking into consideration Lithuanian peculiar context either.
GR2 (Government): In any event, it was not the Lithuanian authorities which had widened the concept of genocide.
GR2 (Government): As David Narcissian has put it in his authoritative study, genocide of political groups, the perpetrator labels the group in order to destroy it.
GR2 (Government): The partisans constituted a group to be destroyed by the Soviet authorities.
GR2 (Government): The applicant in the present case served as one of the tools to assist them in committing the international crime of genocide.
GR2 (Government): To deny this would not only mean a distortion of historical truth, but also a justification by the international community of the atrocities committed by the Soviet authorities against Lithuania and its people.
GR2 (Government): It would be likewise incompatible with the underlying values of the convention, that of common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom, and the rule of law to which the preamble refers.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, now I kindly ask you
GR2 (Government): to give the floor to Professor William Schabas, who will complete Lithuanian submissions and who does not need any wider introduction, I believe.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Schabas, please.
GR1 (Government): Thank you very much, Mr. President,
GR1 (Government): members of the court.
GR1 (Government): It is an honor to appear before the Grand Chamber once again in this case.
GR1 (Government): May it please the court.
GR1 (Government): The word genocide was invented by Raphael Lemkin.
GR1 (Government): It appeared for the first time in his book, Access, Rule, and Occupy Europe, which was published in November 1944.
GR1 (Government): The term rapidly gained currency.
GR1 (Government): It was used by the American jurist Robert Jackson in negotiating the London Agreement that provided the legal framework for the Nuremberg trial.
GR1 (Government): And the word was used on several occasions by prosecutors during the proceedings, but not in the final judgment.
GR1 (Government): The Nazi defendants were convicted of crimes against humanity, an expression that designated a broad range of atrocities perpetrated against any civilian population.
GR1 (Government): The acts included extermination and persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds.
GR1 (Government): The judgment described in considerable detail how the Nazi regime persecuted and destroyed its political opponents.
GR1 (Government): In the weeks following the Nuremberg judgment, in late 1946, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 96 on the crime of genocide.
GR1 (Government): Resolution 96 was proposed by the Cuban delegate to the General Assembly in a speech that was apparently written by Rafael Lemkin.
GR1 (Government): The Cuban representative explained that the Nuremberg trials had precluded punishment of certain crimes of genocide because they had been committed before the war had begun.
GR1 (Government): Fearing that they might remain unpunished owing to the principle of nullum crimine sine legae, the representative of Cuba asked that genocide be declared an international crime, adding that this was the purpose of the resolution.
GR1 (Government): For the purposes of this case, the relevant portion of the resolution is its definition of the crime of genocide, extending to, and I quote, racial, religious, political, or other groups.