Alinea 201 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 26 juni 2018

369. In reaching this conclusion the various authors do not base themselves solely on the opinions expressed in the literature; international case law also supports this view. Here it is sufficient to refer thereto. However, I should like to single out for special mention the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Ould Dah v. France, because - like the present case - it involved the prosecution, in a state which is party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), of a defendant covered by an amnesty scheme in the country where the offences were committed. The applicant had been an officer in the Mauritanian army and was convicted by a French criminal court, exercising universal jurisdiction, for his part in acts of torture committed in that capacity. Ould Dah was sentenced in France to ten years’ imprisonment, although he was covered in his own country by an amnesty law enacted in 1993. He complained to the ECtHR of a breach of article 7 ECHR and submitted that he was entitled to invoke in France the amnesty that had been granted to him in Mauritania. The ECtHR viewed the matter differently. It reasoned, first, that torture should not go unpunished and that there are international obligations to prosecute and punish that crime. It then went on to examine the extraterritorial effect of amnesty:

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/2f8d7e5e67c92c2184978342161b8b6e7ef94ed287abf25732436ec23badffee | shasum -a 256