Q&A: Belgium's unique law

LONDON, England -- Belgian justice has hit the headlines as a result of a law which allows its courts to try alleged war criminals of any nationality for war crimes committed anywhere in the world.

Its highest profile case was the conviction of two Rwandan nuns for their part in the 1994 genocide of their compatriots. It is again in the news for its investigation into complaints lodged against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his role as defence minister in 1982.

CNN's Patricia Kelly is in Brussels and talks about the impact of the law on international justice.

Q: The law burst on to the scene with the trial of the Rwandan nuns, but when was it introduced?

A: It came about in 1993, and the investigation into the Rwandan nuns began shortly afterwards and continued until the trial this year.

Complaints have been made against various people under the law. The Rwandan trial was the first and its showcase. I do not believe complaints have been rolling in after that, some had been made before then. For instance, a complaint had been made against a United Nation's general for his alleged conduct in Rwanda, but the complaint was ruled unacceptable.

Belgium wanted Chile's former leader General Augusto Pinochet at the same time he was placed under house arrest in Britain during a visit to the country.

One complaint has already been dropped against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon because the person who made it was not somehow connected to the alleged crime.

Q: What does the law cover?

A: Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Q: Why was it introduced, and who, or what was the impetus?

A: It was introduced as part of the international effort to establish a worldwide international criminal tribunal.

The government ultimately decided to make it law. It was amended in 1999 to include possible charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

A lot of human rights lawyers and senators closely involved in the Belgium parliament were responsible for pushing the government to introduce it.

Q: How much power does the law have?

A: Nobody is beyond a complaint being made in theory, but they are beyond investigation if a crime has not been committed.

Initial investigation procedures take about a week. The next step is for a fuller investigation, which can last for several months. As a result of that it is decided whether to go for prosecution or not. For example, Greenpeace or Iraqis could make a complaint against the United States' president or Serbs could lodge a complaint against Javier Solana for war crimes. Everyone is open to prosecution here, but whether there is a case or not is another matter.

Q: Could the law end up competing with the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague?

A: No, it is not connected with the Hague at all. The Hague tribunal was set up by the United Nations Security Council. It deals with crimes allegedly committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The Hague is a specific tribunal. Belgium has a national law empowering its courts to act outside its borders.

Q: Won't some world leaders avoid going to Belgium?

A: I don't think so. Any politician with nothing to worry about should not be concerned about visiting Belgium. If a head of state is on an official visit in any country, invited by the government, he or she, cannot be arrested. But if they went to another country on vacation they could be arrested.

Belgium is also looking to make further changes to the law. It is setting up a working group behind closed doors to look at modifying it.

One possible change could be to give temporary immunity while the head of state is still in power. They could still be prosecuted if necessary, when his or her mandate has expired.

Another possible modification is that the panel could be responsible for issuing any international arrest warrants rather than the current situation where the decision is up to only one magistrate.

There is no real indication on how either of these will go, but decisions are not likely until next year.

Q: What was the reaction in Belgium towards the Rwandan nuns' trial?

A: The convictions, 12 years in one case and 20 in the other, were front page headlines everywhere -- so Belgium was not different in that sense.

The law is still controversial and people are still debating the rights and wrongs of it.

Q: Belgium wants other European countries to follow suit and help with the burden of carrying out investigations and trials. How realistic is this?

A: Some countries are looking at Belgium's law with interest to see how it works including Switzerland and Canada. Some could follow.