Debattartikel: Vem ska straffa IS-förbrytarna?

Jag har skrivit artikel hos Sydsvenskan Kultur  "Vem ska straffa IS-förbrytarna?", 12 mars 2019. Texten återfinns nedan.


Vem ska straffa IS-förbrytarna?
Gärna internationell lagföring – men i första hand ska åtal ske nationellt

Mot bakgrund av de fruktansvärda brott som har begåtts i Syrien och Irak har det under flera år väckts krav på att en internationell tribunal eller domstol ska ta sig an brotten.


Internationella brottmålsdomstolar kan fylla flera viktiga funktioner och vara nödvändiga, samtidigt är de väldigt dyra och relativt ineffektiva jämfört med nationella domstolar. Internationella domstolar förfogar inte heller över något eget territorium eller fängelser. Nederländerna, som är säte för flera av dessa domstolar, har varken vilja eller skyldighet att vara avstjälpningsplats för dömda personer. Det innebär att personer som döms vid dessa domstolar måste avtjäna sina straff i länder som frivilligt går med på att ta emot dem.

Det enda land som de har en ovillkorlig rätt att återvända till är landet där de är medborgare. Skapandet av en internationell tribunal löser inte problemet var IS-förbrytare ska avtjäna sina straff eller var de ska leva efter avtjänat straff, vilket är den stora huvudvärken för europeiska makthavare.


Det kan likväl finnas skäl för en tribunal tar sig an Islamiska statens brott i Irak och Syrien, det skulle innebära att ett erkännande gentemot offren att detta var en av vår tids värsta brott. Det största hindret är dock att varken Irak eller Syrien är anslutna till stadgan för Internationella Brottmålsdomstolen (ICC). Säkerhetsrådet kan förvisso utöka ICCs behörighet till att även omfatta Syrien och Irak men Kina och Ryssland har 2014 genom veto förhindrat detta. Svenska regeringen har pekat på FN-tribunalerna för fd Jugoslavien (ICTY) och Rwanda (ICTR) som modeller, men dessa är skapade av FNs säkerhetsråd och således så utgör Kinas och Rysslands veto även hinder mot en sådan lösning.


Internationell samverkan är likväl möjlig, europeiska länder kan samordna sina utredningsresurser genom organ som Europol, Eurojust eller genom direkt samverkan mellan deras respektive nationella utredningsmyndigheter. Sverige och andra europeiska länder kan utöver att lagföra brottslingar i sina egna, nationella domstolar ge stöd till lagföring i den berörda regionen.  Istället för att peka på ICTY, ICTR och ICC så kan specialtribunalen för Sierra Leone och Kambodjarättegångarna tjäna som inspiration. De vilade på avtal mellan FN och de berörda länderna. I bosniska domstolar har utländska domare tjänstgjort vid krigsförbrytarrättegångar. EU har finansierat och bemannat en specialdomstol för Kosovo, rättegångarna genomförs i Haag men domstolen är grundad på lag antagen i Kosovo. Afrikanska unionen har genom avtal med Senegal upprättat domstol för brott begångna i Chad. Exemplen Sierra Leone, Kambodja, Bosnien, Kosovo och Chad är i högre grad knutna till respektive lands befintliga lagstiftning och myndigheter, de kan vara bättre modeller för hur IS-förbrytare ska lagföras än krav på en ny internationell tribunal. Sverige skulle kunna ge stöd i form av ekonomiska resurser och expertis för att säkra rättssäkerhet i rättegångar som genomföras nationellt, exempelvis i Irak. Det är svårare att se hur det skulle kunna ske i förhållande till Syrien eftersom regimen är en av de största förövarna i den aktuella konflikten. Regimen visar varken vilja att stå till svars för sina handlingar eller upprätthålla rättssäkerhet.


Bland oss som är verksamma inom området – akademiker och yrkesverksamma – råder enighet om att framtiden för bekämpandet av internationella brott ligger hos nationella brottsbekämpande myndigheter och domstolar.


Mark Klamberg
Docent och lektor i folkrätt, Stockholms universitet
Research fellow, University of Oxford 2018-2019

Intervju, Experternas bästa argument: Så ska IS-återvändarna åtalas

Jag har medverkati intervju i Metro "Experternas bästa argument: Så ska IS-återvändarna åtalas", 9 mars 2019

Intervju: Tribunal är inget magiskt trollspö

Jag har medverkat i intervju SvD/TT: "Tribunal är inget magiskt trollspö", 7 mars 2019

Intervju: Återvändande extremister svår fråga

Jag har medverkat i SR P1 morgon om "Återvändande extremister svår fråga", 21 februari 2019

Intervju: Politiskt svårt bistå IS-svenskar

Jag har medverkat i intervju TT/Sydsvenskan "Politiskt svårt bistå IS-svenskar", 18 februari 2019

Krönika: Yttrandefriheten och religionsfriheten

Jag har skrivit krönika i UNT "Yttrandefriheten och religionsfriheten", 1 december 2018

Håkan Friman's publications

The Journal of International Criminal Justice has published a new issue with a  symposium dedicated to the life and work of Håkan Friman, Swedish Judge and one of the drafters of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I made a list of Håkan Friman's publications that did not make it into the issue. You will find it below.

Håkan Friman – list of publications

1.    Selektiv distribution enligt EG:s konkurrensrätt, Stockholm, Juristförlaget, 1989
2.    ’Den nya svenska konkurrenslagen och begreppet ”relevant marknad” ’ with Ulf Djurberg, Svensk Juristtidning, 1994, 822–851.
3.    ’Modellag om gränsöverskridande  insolvensförfaranden’ Svensk Juristtidning, 1997, 736-755
4.    ‘UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency – An Introduction’. Paper based on a presentation at a Conference on UNCITRAL Instruments in the Southern Africa on 6 May 1999, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, South-Africa
5.    ‘International Criminal Court: Negotiations and Key Issues’, 8(6) African Security Review, 1999, 3-14
6.    ‘Rights of persons suspected or accused of a crime : International criminal law procedures’, in Lee, Roy S. (ed.), The International Criminal Court : The Making of the Rome Statute : Issues, Negotiations, Results, 247-261 (Kluwer Law International, 1999)
7.    ’The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court’ with Silvia A. Fernández de Gurmendi, 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2000, 289-336
8.    ‘Blaškić-saken’, 18(2) Mennesker & Rettigheter 2000, 126-134
9.    ‘Investigation and Prosecution’ in Lee, Roy S. (ed), The International Criminal Court – Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 493-538 (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2001)
10.    ‘The Democratic Republic of Congo: Justice in the aftermath of peace? ’, 10(3) African Security Review, 2001, 62-77
11.    ‘Todorović-saken’, 19(2) Mennesker & Rettigheter 2001, 137-147
12.    ‘Brđanin og Talić-saken’, 19(4) Mennesker & Rettigheter 2001, 137-142
13.    ‘Commentary on the sentencing Judgment, Prosecutor v. Todorović, T- Ch. 31 July 2001’, In André Klip (ed) The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 2001, 795-804
14.    ‘Participation of Victims in the Proceedings’ with Gilbert Bitti in Lee, Roy S. (ed), The International Criminal Court – Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 456-474 (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2001)
15.    ‘Reparation to Victims’ with Peter Lewis in Lee, Roy S. (ed), The International Criminal Court – Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 474-491 (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2001)
16.    ‘Investigation and Prosecution’ in Lee, Roy S. (ed), The International Criminal Court – Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 493-502 (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2001)
17.    ‘Offences and Misconduct Against the Court’ in Lee, Roy S. (ed), The International Criminal Court – Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 605-622 (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2001)
18.    ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence in the Investigative Stage’ in Fischer, Horst, Kreß, Claus and Lüder, Sascha Rolf (eds), International and national prosecution of crimes under International Law: current developements (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2001)
19.    ‘Informal expert paper for the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: “The principle of complementarity in practice” ’ with Xabier Agirre, Antonio Cassese, Rolf Einar Fife, Håkan Friman, Christopher Hall, John T. Holmes, Jann Kleffner, Hector Olasolo, Norul H. Rashid, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurst and Andreas Zimmermann, ICC Office of the Prosecutor, 2003
20.    ‘Note regarding the European Union’s Regulation No 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings’ University of Pretoria, 3 January 2003
21.    ‘Note regarding Cross-Border Insolvency’ University of Pretoria, 7 January 2003
22.    ‘Inspiration from the International Criminal Tribunals when Developing Law on Evidence for the International Criminal Court’, 2 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 2003, 373-400
23.    ‘Procedural Law of Internationalized Criminal Courts’ with Nollkaemper, André and Kleffner, Jann K.,  in Romano, Cesare P. R. (ed), Internationalized Criminal Courts, 317-358 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
24.    ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence in the Investigative Stage’ in Fischer, Horst, Kreß, Claus and Lüder, Sascha Rolf (eds), International and national prosecution of crimes under International Law: current developements, 191-217 (Second Edition, Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2004)
25.    ‘The International Criminal Court: Investigations into crimes committed in the DRC and Uganda. What is next?’ in African Security Review, 2004, 19-27
26.    ’The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court’ with Silvia A. Fernández de Gurmendi, in Bekou, Olympia and Cryer, Robert (eds), The International Criminal Court… (Ashgate/Dartmouth, 2004)
27.    ‘Institutional Framework of the ICC’ with Darryl Robinson in Commonwealth Secretariat, The Prosecution of International Crimes: A Practical Guide to Prosecuting ICC Crimes in Commonwealth States, 2005, 3-16
28.    ‘Sweden’ in Claus Kreß, Bruce Broomhall, Flavia Lattanzi and Valeria Santorui (eds) The Rome Statute and Domestic Legal Orders: Constitutional Issues, Cooperation and Enforcement, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2005, 381-424
29.    ‘Political and Legal Considerations in Sweden Relating to the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court’ in Lee, Roy S. (ed), States’ Responses to Issues Arising from the ICC Statute, Constitutional, Sovereignty, Judicial Cooperation and Criminal Law, 121-145 (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2005)
30.    ‘Interlocutory Appeals In The Early Practice Of The International Criminal Court’, 2008 The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court, 553-562
31.    ‘Cooperation with the International Criminal Court: Some Thoughts on Improvements Under the Current Regime, in Politi, Mauro and Gioia, Federica (eds), The International Criminal Court and National Jurisdictions, 93-102 (Ashgate, 2008)
32.    An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, with Robert Cryer, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, (First Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)
33.    ‘The International Criminal Court and Participation of Victims: A Third Party to the Proceedings?’, 22 Leiden Journal of International Law 2009, 485-500
34.    ‘Participation of Victims in the ICC Criminal Proceedings and the Early Jurisprudence of the Court’ in Sluiter, Göran and Vasiliev, Sergey (eds), International Criminal Procedure Towards a Coherent Body of Law, 205-236 (London: Cameron May, 2009)
35.    ‘The Rules of Procedure and Evidence and Regulations of the Court’ with Silvia A. Fernández de Gurmendi, in: José Doria et al (eds.), The Legal Regime of the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko (Martinus Nijhoff, 2009)
36.    ‘Trying Cases at the International Criminal Tribunals in the Absence of the Accused?’, in Darcy, Shane and Powderly, Joseph (eds) Judicial creativity at the international Criminal Tribunals, 332-352, (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010)
37.    ‘International Criminal Procedures: Trial and Appeal Procedures’ in Schabas, William and Bernaz, Nadia (eds),  Routledge handbook of international criminal law, 271-287 (Routledge, 2010)
38.    An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, with Robert Cryer, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurst,  (Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)
39.    How to approach European Union Criminal Law: International Law, National Law, or Something in between?, in Law and justice: a strategy perspective, 261-270 (The Hague : Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2012)
40.    ‘Charges’ with Helen Brady, Matteo Costi, Fabricio Guariglia, Carl Friedrich Stuckenberg, in Sluiter, Göran and others (eds), International Criminal Procedure: Principles and Rules (Oxford University Press, 2013)
41.    ‘International criminal procedure : principles and rules’ as editor with Göran Sluiter; Håkan Friman; Suzannah Linton; Sergey Vasiliev; & Salvatore Zappalà, (eds), (Oxford University Press, 2013)
42.    ‘Initiating Criminal Proceedings with Military Force: Some Legal Aspects of Policing Somali Pirates by Navies’, with Jens Lindborg in Modern Piracy Legal Challenges and Responses, Guilfoyle, Douglas (ed), 172-201 (Elgar, 2013)
43.    An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, with Robert Cryer, Darryl Robinson, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, (Third Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014)
44.    ‘Trial Procedures - with a Particular Focus on the Relationship between the Proceedings of the Pre-Trial and Trial Chambers’ in Carsten Stahn (ed) The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, 909-931
45.    Överlämnande enligt en europeisk eller nordisk arresteringsorder: en kommentar, with Ulf Wallentheim and Joakim Zetterstedt, Friman, Stockholm: Wolters Kluwer, 2016
46.    ’Article 75 Reparations to Victims” in Mark Klamberg (ed) Commentary on the Law of the ICC, (Brussels: TOAEP, 2017), 571-583
47.    ’Article 82 Appeal against other decisions” in Mark Klamberg (ed) Commentary on the Law of the ICC, (Brussels: TOAEP, 2017), 609-622

Två intervjuer i DN

Jag har medverkat i två intervjuer i DN den 16 juni 2018 "Björn Söders (SD) utspel om samer och judar får stark kritik" och den 17 juni 2018 "Björn Söder står fast vid uttalande om minoriteter".

Has the majority in the Bemba case treated circumstantial evidence with the logics that apply to hearsay evidence?

The Appeal Judgement in the Bemba case has resulted in a debate on several issues, including evaluation of evidence. I would like to highlight two paragraphs in the separate opinion of Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert and Judge Howard Morrison.

11. We are also concerned about the fact that the Trial Chamber relied on a large amount of circumstantial evidence in relation to a number of key findings. Again, the Trial Chamber stated the correct principle that circumstantial evidence can only lead to findings beyond a reasonable doubt when the proposed inference is the only plausible one, but has often failed to adhere to this principle in its actual analysis.  

12. For example, in paragraphs 676 to 684, the Conviction Decision lists eight circumstantial factors that it considered cumulatively proved the existence of a policy to attack a civilian population. We are far from persuaded that there was sufficient evidence to support the eight ‘factors’ that were relied upon. In this regard, it is sometimes argued that only the material facts must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and that it is unnecessary to establish subsidiary facts to the same standard.7 While this is legally correct, it does not mean that the quality of the evidence for subsidiary facts is irrelevant from an evidentiary point of view. This is especially true in relation to circumstantial evidence. By definition, drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence only adds uncertainty. Therefore, if the factual basis of the circumstantial evidence is weak, the inferences drawn from it will be even weaker.

I have a problem especially with the last sentence which is arguably wrong: "if the factual basis of the circumstantial evidence is weak, the inferences drawn from it will be even weaker."

To the contrary, even if separate pieces of evidence are too weak by themselves to prove guilt, the combined evidentiary value will be stronger than any of the individual pieces if the pieces of evidence are independent and seek to prove the same fact in issue. These logics apply to circumstantial evidence which is a form of concurrent (corroborative) evidence. The opposite logics apply to successive (chain) evidence, all pieces of evidence in a chain that are less than certain will have the result that the combined inference will be even weaker. Hearsay is an example of this. From the paragraph above it appears as the judges in the majority erroneously have applied the logics of successive evidence when evaluating circumstantial evidence (concurrent evidence). In other words, has the majority in the Bemba case treated circumstantial evidence with the logics that apply to hearsay evidence?

I have written about this in my book Evidence in International Criminal Trials (2013), pages 177-179 and more recently in the article The Alternative Hypothesis Approach, Robustness and International Criminal Justice (2015). Let us compare successive (chain) evidence and concurrent (corroborative) evidence while leaving counterevidence aside.

First, successive (chain) evidence concerns evidentiary facts that each are links in a chain. The links all have a probative value that is less than certain, which will have the result that the combined evidentiary weight can never be higher than the evidentiary value of the weakest link. The rule of thumb, or cautionary advice, is that successive evidence is often overestimated because the focus of the evaluation of evidence tends to be towards the last link of the chain neglecting the previous links. This is the reason why the evidentiary value of hearsay evidence (which is a form of successive evidence) tends to be weaker than direct evidence. International judges appear to be aware of this danger. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)Appeals Chamber has in Aleksovski and Kordic and Cerkez listed indicia of reliability for hearsay evidence where of one indicia is whether it is ‘first-hand or removed’. This approach has been repeated at the ICTY and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and International Criminal Court (ICC); case law suggests that hearsay evidence normally should be afforded less probative value or weight.

Secondly, counterevidence…  

Thirdly, concurrent (corroborative) evidence concerns two or more independent pieces of evidence that concurs and separately has a probative value supporting the fact in issue. An example would be two witnesses that observe the same event independently of each other. The probative value in such cases may be higher than the highest probative value of any of the separate pieces of evidence, which [at a first glance] may appear illogical. The rule of thumb is thus that in cases of concurrent evidence the weight is, according to Ekelöf, often higher than what is normally expected. With a similar logic, judges at the ICTR and ICC have declared that they attach higher probative value to those parts of a testimony which may be corroborated;  

Klamberg, The Alternative Hypothesis Approach, Robustness and International Criminal Justice (2015), pages 540-541

I dont have a problem with what  Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert and Judge Howard Morrison write about [alternative] plausible explanations in para. 14, it fits very well with my take on evaluating evidence. It is just another part in the process.

Frågor väcks om det undertecknade dokumentet

Jag har gett kommentar till TT/Aftonbladet 12 juni 2018 angående Trumps och Kims gemensamma uttalande: "Frågor väcks om det undertecknade dokumentet".

Jugoslaviendomstol sätter punkt med Mladic

Jag blev intervjuad i Sydsvenskan 21 november 2017 om "Jugoslaviendomstol sätter punkt med Mladic"

Krönika i UNT

Jag har skrivit krönika i UNT på temat datalagring: "Sverige måste övertyga EU-domstolen", 3 november 2017.