CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: A TOOL AGAINST IMPUNITY of victim groups in order to include others, such as cultural and political groups, but unsuccessfully. In addition, there might be other acts than those listed in Article III that can be committed with a view to destroying one of the protected groups. 37 A necessary element which distinguishes it from all other international crimes is that of intent to destroy a group. The specificity of genocide is not exhausted solely with regard to the four groups that may become the target of genocide, but its importance lays mainly on the basis of the particular mens rea of the perpetrator, whose intention must be to destroy in whole or in part anyone of the enumerated groups. This element renders genocide a specific intent ( dolus specialis ) and differentiates it from all other international crimes. 38 As a consequence, genocide is regarded as having a particular seriousness, which is underlined by the fact that its prohibition has attained the status of a jus cogens norm and an erga omnes 39 obligation and has been described as the “ultimate crime” or “crime of crimes”. 40 With respect to jurisdiction, especially universal jurisdiction, Article VI of the Convention does not speak of universal jurisdiction per se . Despite this fact, such jurisdiction over the crime of genocide can still be found under customary law. Universal jurisdiction over genocide has been recognized under customary law, for example in the Eichmann judgment. 41 In addition, in the Tadic case the ICTY’s Appeals Chamber stated, in connection with genocide, that “universal jurisdiction [is] nowadays acknowledged in the case of international crimes.” 42 Similarly, the ICTR held in the case of Prosecutor v. Ntuyahaga that universal jurisdiction exists for the crime of genocide. 43 2.2.5 Torture and Acts of Terrorism International crimes over which universal jurisdiction can be exercised exclusively as a matter of international agreement are, for example, torture and terrorism. The crime of torture is not subject to a uniform definition within the international community. The treaty governing torture is the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Torture Convention). 44 Under the convention, state parties pledge to “ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under [their] criminal law”, 45 thus providing that any state may exercise jurisdiction 37 Cassese, Antonio: op. cit ., pp. 110; 113; 119; Cryer, Robert et al .: op. cit. , p. 208. 38 Bantekas, Ilias: International Criminal Law . 4 th ed. United Kingdom: Hart Publishing, 2010, p. 207. Cryer, Robert et al .: op. cit. , p. 203. 39 See sub-chapter 2.3.1. on obligations erga omnes . 40 Cassese, Antonio: op. cit ., p. 110; CRYER, Robert et al .: op. cit. , pp. 203-204; Bantekas, Ilias: op. cit., p. 203. 41 Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann : op. cit . 42 Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, decision on the Defense Motion for Introductory Appeal on Jurisdiction, October 2, 1995, para 62. 43 Prosektor v. Ntuyahaga, Case No, ICTR-90-40-T, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion to Withdraw the Indictment, Mar 18, 1999. 44 Adopted on 10 December, 1984. As of May 2013, the Torture Convention has 153 state parties. 45 ibid . at Article 4.