There are several enforcement mechanisms for individuals, including women who are victims of violence, who seek remedies for human rights violations in the international realm. A woman may submit communications to any of the six United Nations treaty bodies, the Commission on the Status of Women, the Human Rights Commission (1503 Procedure), or the relevant Special Rapporteur. In the European Union, she may bring an individual claim before the European Court of Human Rights or a collective complaint before the European Committee of Social Rights. A woman from a country that is a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) can bring a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, or, if the country is a party to the American Convention on Human Rights, under that Convention.  In addition to these international remedies, however, it is also possible for women, and other individuals seeking remedies, to litigate violations of international law in domestic courts using the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Universal jurisdiction is an important means of ensuring justice where criminal prosecution would not be possible under ordinary rules of jurisdiction. The principle of universal jurisdiction allows a court to prosecute alleged perpetrators of human rights violations even where no direct link between the country and alleged violation exists. In other words, the court may exercise jurisdiction regardless of where the crime was committed or what nationality the victim or perpetrator holds. Its jurisdiction stems from the nature of the crime.  Generally, universal jurisdiction applies to violations of international humanitarian law, such as breaches of the Geneva Conventions, genocide, piracy, slavery, crimes against humanity, and torture. Other instruments that establish the relevant humanitarian standards include the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the annexed Hague Conventions Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, Allied Control Council Law No. 10, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

While the scope and availability of universal jurisdiction varies across countries and institutions, there are several fundamental standards. Both Amnesty International and the Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction have published key principles on the exercise of universal jurisdiction. These principles address:

• Defining the crimes  covered by universal jurisdiction
• Eliminating official immunities
• Eliminating retrospective immunity
• Eliminating statutes of limitation
• Barring certain defenses such as duress, orders, and necessity
• Ensuring jurisdiction over suspects shielded by other national laws
• Removing political interference
• Ensuring the right to a fair trial 
• Eliminating requiring victim complaints for prosecution
• Double jeopardy
• Extradition
• Providing for public trials and international monitoring
• Protecting the interests of victims, witnesses, and families
• Abolishing capital punishment or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment
• Facilitating international cooperation
• Resolving conflicts between competing national jurisdictions
• Encouraging national and international legal reform
• Effective training of judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and investigators
• Strengthening accountability and universal jurisdiction
• Settling disputes

Universal jurisdiction may be available when a State has ratified a treaty conferring jurisdiction on States Parties. International treaties, such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and Geneva Conventions, confer universal jurisdiction on States Parties for specific crimes. For example, CAT grants States Parties jurisdiction over acts of torture, regardless where the act occurred. Article 5 requires State Parties to take necessary measures to establish jurisdiction when the violation is committed in its territory (territorial jurisdiction), when the alleged perpetrator is a national of that State (active personality jurisdiction); when the victim is a national of that State (passive personality jurisdiction); or when the perpetrator is present in its territory and the State Party does not extradite (aut dedere aut judicare).

States applying universal jurisdiction have to adapt their own traditional methods of criminal investigation to the international context. Members of the domestic legal system, like prosecutors and the police, are less likely to be familiar with crimes that occurred in a different country, especially when those crimes often occurred many years prior to the filing of the complaint. Despite these difficulties, utilizing the principle of universal jurisdiction, many states have succeeded in retooling their criminal procedures to accept claims, try cases, and convict perpetrators of extraterritorial human rights violations.

The immigration-based complaint is a common mechanism with which to initiate universal jurisdiction prosecution. The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have established different types of investigation and complaint mechanisms that are triggered when asylum or visa applicants are suspected of having committed an international crime. Ongoing cooperation with immigration authorities is fundamental in the prosecution of international crimes since it is common for perpetrators and victims alike to flee their countries during times of civil war or change of government.  From:  Human Rights Watch, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe:  The State of the Art, Vol. 18, No. 5(D) June 2006, 1 July 2008.

Civil law jurisdictions and some common law jurisdictions also allow privately initiated criminal prosecution for extraterritorial acts. Spain and France have traditionally allowed victims to submit complaints directly to a judge or prosecutor. This right has been extended to cases under universal jurisdiction.  Even the United Kingdom, a common law country, permits individuals to request arrest warrants when the police do not investigate a claim. From:  Human Rights Watch, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe:  The State of the Art, Vol. 18, No. 5(D) June 2006, 1 July 2008 . The privately initiated complaint is a valuable tool in universal jurisdiction prosecution. This type of complaint opens the door to international crime investigations when domestic prosecutors may be reluctant to intervene, or may be concerned about the foreign policy implications of their actions.  In fact, two landmark universal jurisdiction cases developed from complaints from private parties: the requests to extradite Chile’s former dictator Augusto Pinochet from the United Kingdom to Spain, and Chad’s former dictator Hissène Habré from Senegal to Belgium.

Once a complaint has been filed, several investigative mechanisms aid in the prosecution of alleged international crime perpetrators. Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Canada, and Ethiopia have created special units, with experts on complex criminal cases and international criminal law, which have both police and prosecutorial powers.From:  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction:  The challenges for police and prosecuting authorities, AI Index: IOR 53/007/2007 June 2007, 1 July 2008 .  These special units are fundamental in facilitating a state’s international law obligation to take to court, or extradite, suspects of human rights violations.  From:  Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva: United Nations, 1949  Art. 49; United Nations. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New York: United Nations, 1984 Art. 5(2).  Special units are also evidence of a country’s institutionalized commitment to investigate universal jurisdiction cases. These units supplement any privately initiated complaint mechanisms by providing the investigative resources that private parties lack. From:  Human Rights Watch, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe:  The State of the Art, Vol. 18, No. 5(D) June 2006, 1 July 2008 .  The United States does not currently have a unit equipped to handle such matters.

Even in the absence of specialized units trained in international investigation, states prosecuting universal jurisdiction cases can conduct much of their research locally.  Prosecutors can consult reports from human rights organizations, interview victims or witnesses in diaspora communities, and review reports from official and unofficial truth commissions.  Extraterritorial investigations are a next possible step. Such investigations involve continuing the process of investigation in the country where the alleged international crime took place. First, usually by obtaining a “mutual legal assistant treaty,” investigators and prosecutors have to ensure domestic approval for their activities in the foreign state.  From:  Human Rights Watch, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe:  The State of the Art, Vol. 18, No. 5(D) June 2006, 1 July 2008.  Although negotiating mutual legal assistance can be a lengthy process, once the foreign government authorizes the investigation, local authorities are generally cooperative.  Investigations may be conducted by the prosecutors of the universal jurisdiction case, local authorities, or a combination of the two.  From:   Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction:  The challenges for police and prosecuting authorities, AI Index: IOR 53/007/2007 June 2007, 1 July 2008.  At the end of the investigation of a universal jurisdiction case, the evidence collected is heavily based on witnesses’ accounts since documentary and physical evidence is often difficult to obtain. From:  Human Rights Watch, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe:  The State of the Art, Vol. 18, No. 5(D) June 2006, 1 July 2008.

Unfortunately, even after a successful investigation new challenges emerge. Some countries have poor or slow arrest procedures which may allow perpetrators of human rights violations to escape. Other countries require proof that the suspect is present in the country before taking any actions, which further increases the risk of escape.  In addition, although amnesties and pardons of crimes against humanity are prohibited under international law, investigators may have to confront opposition from a foreign country when trying to arrest a suspect protected by such mechanisms.  From:  From: Donald Donovan, Anthea Roberts, “The emerging recognition of civil universal jurisdiction,” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 100, No 1, (Jan., 2006): 142-163, 161 and Human Rights Watch, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe:  The State of the Art, Vol. 18, No. 5(D) June 2006, 1 July 2008.                 

The information necessary to investigate international crimes may also be obtained through newly-developed international cooperation networks. The main examples of such networks are: Interpol’s “Expert Meetings” and international crime “Working Groups” and the European Union’s “Network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” Although these entities are at an early stage of development, they already have the ability to provide limited information on national legislation and the set-up and organization of specialized units, as well as advice on conducting extraterritorial investigations.  From: Human Rights Watch, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe: The State of the Art, Vol. 18, No.5(D) June 2006, 1 July 2008. Yet, as suggested by Amnesty International’s recommendations report, Interpol could greatly improve the effectiveness of state cooperation in universal jurisdiction cases by adopting some fundamental tactics:  requesting an international crime contact point from each member country; regularly publishing information on Interpol’s activities on crimes against humanity; establishing formal networks of information exchange; holding expert meetings more frequently; drafting an international treaty on extradition; and adding human rights violations to the list of priority crime areas.  From:  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction:  The challenges for police and prosecuting authorities, AI Index: IOR 53/007/2007 June 2007, 1 July 2008 and  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: Improving the effectiveness of state cooperation, AI Index: IOR 53/006/2007 June 2007, 1 July 2008 .

Human rights groups have been instrumental in campaigning for the creation of new international monitoring bodies with the ability to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of human rights violations. Amnesty International, for example, pled for the creation of an international organization using the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute human rights violations by Israelis and Palestinians.  From: “Amnesty seeks Mid-East watchdog,” BBC News 4 June 2007, 1 July 2008. 

Also, universal jurisdiction may be available in states that have adopted laws that grant universal jurisdiction within their domestic legal systems. Perhaps one of the most significant universal jurisdiction cases since 2005 has been the prosecution of Hissène Habré. The former dictator of Chad has been accused of crimes against humanity including murder, enforced disappearance, and torture.  In 2005 a Belgian judge indicted Habré and issued an international warrant served in Senegal, where he was living under the watch of local authorities. Belgium also requested Habré’s extradition, but a Senegalese court held that it did not have the authority to decide whether he could be extradited.  Subsequently, the United Nations Committee Against Torture gave Senegal ninety days to try Habré or allow his extradition.  From:  “UN gives Senegal Habré deadline,” BBC News 5 May 2006, 1 July 2008 .  In a subsequent ruling, the African Union called Senegal to prosecute Habré “in the name of Africa.” Finally, in 2006, Senegal enacted the necessary legislation to try Habré domestically, based on universal jurisdiction. This will be the first universal jurisdiction case tried in a country in Africa.  Other recent cases include the conviction of Mauritanian Captain Ely Ould Dah in France on charges of torture, the prosecution of Afghan warlord Faryadi Zardad in the United Kingdom for hostage taking, and that of Afghan former generals Hishamuddin Hesam and Habibullah Jamal Zoey in the Netherlands for war crimes. From:  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: Improving the effectiveness of state cooperation, AI Index: IOR 53/006/2007 June 2007, 1 July 2008.

Another recent landmark case is Spain’s prosecution of former Guatemalan general and de facto president, Efraín Ríos Montt. This decision restored Spain as one of the leading states in the prosecution of crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction. In 1999, Nobel Prize Winner Rigoberta Menchú filed charges against Ríos Montt alleging torture, genocide, terrorism, summary execution, and unlawful detention of Guatemalan people. The Spanish lower court accepted the charges but upper courts found the case inadmissible on jurisdictional grounds.  In 2005, Spain’s Constitutional Court made several groundbreaking holdings: a valid universal jurisdiction case does not require a nexus with Spain; complainants do not need to show that trial in the territorial state is not possible to have access to Spanish courts; and territorial courts and international courts have priority over Spanish courts in trying universal jurisdiction. From:  Naomi Roht-Arriaza, “Guatemala Genocide Case,” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 100, No.1, (Jan., 2006): 207-213, 207 and Human Rights Watch, Universal Jurisdiction in Europe: The State of the Art, Vol. 18, No.5(D) June 2006, 1 July 2008.  Despite these important developments, in 2008 the Guatemalan Constitutional Court held that the magistrate court in Spain had no authority to try Ríos Montt, and dismissed the arrest warrant and extradition request pending against him.  From: “Menchú, contra los jueces que fallaron a favor de los ex altos cargos guatemaltecos,” El País.   However, the Guatemala case remains significant precedent because it addresses some of the most complex issues relating to universal jurisdiction, such as links to the forum state and the relationship between the territorial state and the forum state. This, and other universal jurisdiction claims in Spain, were grounded on Article 23.4 of Spain’s Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, which allows for prosecution of genocide, terrorism and other crimes recognized by treaties signed by Spain.  From:  Naomi Roht-Arriaza, “Guatemala Genocide Case,” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 100, No.1, (Jan., 2006): 207-213, 207.

The entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) may facilitate progressive changes in other states' jurisdiction laws. The ICC, which has complementary jurisdiction to the domestic legal systems, may act only when national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute suspects. However, the jurisdiction of the ICC is limited. Victims may not initiate cases at the ICC; only a State Party, the Security Council or the Prosecutor may initiate cases. Also, the ICC's jurisdiction does not apply retrospectively to crimes committed before the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. In addition, unless the Security Council refers a case to the Prosecutor, the ICC lacks jurisdiction unless the state where the crimes were committed or the state of the accused's nationality gives consent. Finally, the number of cases that the ICC will be able to accept is limited.

Several states have adopted or are in the process of adopting legislation to implement the Rome Statute and provide jurisdiction over ICC crimes, namely genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity include rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization and sexual violence. When implementing the Rome Statute, States Parties may expand the ICC's jurisdiction to grant broader universal jurisdiction. Therefore, domestic legal reforms are important not only to ensure the minimal jurisdiction over ICC crimes, but also for their potential in creating broader jurisdiction where the ICC cannot apply. Indeed, Spain's implementing ICC legislation, Organic Law 6/2000, states in its purpose: "This accumulation of doctrinal, legislative, and jurisprudential efforts established the bases for the effective protection of human rights in the international arena, breaking with old dogmas of criminal law, such as the principle of territoriality, based on the idea of national sovereignty, making way for a new principle of universal jurisdiction." The status of all States Parties' implementing legislation is available at the ICC website.

Some countries recognizing universal jurisdiction permit the filing of civil claims in criminal proceedings, potentially allowing victims to recover remedies for violations of international human rights.From:  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: The scope of universal civil jurisdiction, AI Index 53/008/2007 July 2007, 1 July 2008 . Civil universal jurisdiction, and the compensation it may provide to victims of human rights violations, can be an independent or supplementary method to punish and deter international crimes.  From:  Donald Donovan, Anthea Roberts, “The emerging recognition of civil universal jurisdiction,” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 100, No 1, (Jan., 2006): 142-163, 161.  International law allows states to exercise universal jurisdiction over civil claims for torts based on the underlying international crime.  From:  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: The scope of universal civil jurisdiction, AI Index 53/008/2007 July 2007, 1 July 2008. The right to recover compensation under civil universal jurisdiction is found repeatedly in recent international law: Article 14 of the Convention against Torture; the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power; the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; the Van Boven-Bassiouni Principles and the Joinet-Orentlicher Principles.  From:  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: The scope of universal civil jurisdiction, AI Index 53/008/2007 July 2007, 1 July 2008.  Most recently, the UN Commission on Human Rights approved the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.  From:  Donald Donovan, Anthea Roberts, “The emerging recognition of civil universal jurisdiction,” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 100, No 1, (Jan., 2006): 142-163, 161.  Yet, a victim’s right to civil recovery was recognized as early as a century ago, as reflected in Article 3 of the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907.  From:  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: The scope of universal civil jurisdiction, AI Index 53/008/2007 July 2007, 1 July 2008.  

In the United States, civil universal jurisdiction is exercised under the Alien Tort Claims Act.  The Act provides federal courts with jurisdiction over torts committed overseas and based on the law of nations.  In many European Union countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden, a civil claim can be attached to criminal prosecution under an “action civile.”  This procedural maneuver is also applicable to cases based on universal jurisdiction.  In addition, the Council of the European Union requires its member states to accept and enforce judgments granting civil remedies in criminal proceedings from other member states, many of which have universal jurisdiction. France, for example, provides jurisdiction whenever French law is applicable to crimes committed outside of France or France has ratified a relevant treaty conferring jurisdiction (Article 689). Article 3 of the French Criminal Code provides that victims may litigate a civil claim for any cause of damage at the same time as the criminal prosecution. Article 2 provides that victims may seek compensation for damages suffered as a result of crimes under French law. Articles 4 and 5 allow victims to bring a separate civil action. Doing so, however, will prevent the victim from initiating a criminal action, except in cases where the criminal case was initiated by the public prosecutor prior to a judgment by the civil court. Other civil law states like Argentina, Bolivia, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Poland, Romania, Senegal, and Venezuela can also exercise universal jurisdiction over civil tort claims committed abroad.  From:  Amnesty International, Universal Jurisdiction: The scope of universal civil jurisdiction, AI Index 53/008/2007 July 2007, 1 July 2008 and Donald Donovan, Anthea Roberts, “The emerging recognition of civil universal jurisdiction,” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 100, No 1, (Jan., 2006): 142-163, 161.

The scope of civil universal jurisdiction, very much like the scope of criminal universal jurisdiction, is in constant flux.  At a minimum, however, civil universal jurisdiction should apply when the countries that have traditional jurisdiction over the claim are unable to provide an adequate forum. That was the case in Rwanda, for example, when the judicial system was destroyed by civil war.  From:  Donald Donovan, Anthea Roberts, “The emerging recognition of civil universal jurisdiction,” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 100, No 1, (Jan., 2006): 142-163, 161.

The law of state responsibility requires reparations for violations of international law. Although universal criminal and civil jurisdiction are at an early stage of development, recognition for these principles is growing through the development of domestic legislation and international courts. By creating a mechanism to restore justice, landmark cases such as the prosecution of former Chad dictator Hissène Habré and former de facto Guatemalan president Efraín Ríos Montt give hope to the victims of crimes against humanity.  These cases, however, also gave rise to criticism of the ideal of universal jurisdiction by those who believe that national sovereignty requires a narrow interpretation of that concept.  From:  Donald Donovan, Anthea Roberts, “The emerging recognition of civil universal jurisdiction,” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 100, No 1, (Jan., 2006): 142-163, 161.  Challenges lie ahead as human rights NGOs, international courts, individual states and transnational organizations work to address the problems raised by this principle, and move forward in the development of workable universal jurisdiction laws.