On August 17, 2022, lawyers acting for the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) and the World Uygur Congress (WUC) filed a criminal complaint in Buenos Aires for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against Uyghurs and other Turkic people. The landmark case against Chinese officials was submitted under Argentina’s universal jurisdiction provisions. If Argentine officials hear the case, it will be the first time that evidence of the genocide happening in northwest China has appeared before a court.
While criminal prosecutions usually require a connection to the country in which they are brought, the principle of universal jurisdiction overcomes this restraint. International law recognizes certain crimes as so atrocious, that any nation should have the authority to hold perpetrators accountable for crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture– regardless of where the crime occurred and who committed it.
In this blog post, we first explain the factual and procedural background of the Uyghur genocide case. We then discuss other important universal jurisdiction cases in Argentina and around the world. We end by stressing the significance of this case and universal jurisdiction more generally as an avenue to end impunity for atrocity crimes.
The Uyghur Genocide Case
Victims and human rights groups have accused the Chinese government of committing genocide against the Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in the Uyghur Region. Civil society organizations and journalists have documented widespread imprisonment, forced disappearances, and torture against the the Turkic Muslim population since 2017. As our recent blog post on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act explained, the Chinese government has detained over 1.8 million people in “re-education camps” as part of a massive forced labor and surveillance program. And global companies sourcing from factories exploiting this forced labor benefit from these atrocities.
Unlike in the United States, in countries like Argentina, victims and human rights organizations can file criminal complaints directly with the judiciary, which will then work with prosecutors to open an investigation into alleged crimes and subsequently decide whether it will hear the case on the crimes alleged.
In this case, the criminal complaint alleges genocide, crimes against humanity, and torture against Uyghurs and other Turkic groups in the Uyghur Region and identifies individuals UHRP and WUC allege to be “most responsible” for these crimes. During the first stage of the proceedings, the Argentine judge will decide whether to open the investigation. Once the case has been opened, the judge can hear testimony from victims and may even issue international arrest warrants for suspects.
The lawyers filed the criminal complaint pleading the principle of universal jurisdiction, which has been incorporated into Argentine law. Article 118 of the Argentine constitution provides that crimes “against public international law” committed outside of Argentina shall be tried as determined by a special law, and Article 5 of Law 26,200/06 spells out the federal courts’ jurisdiction for these heinous crimes.
Other Universal Jurisdiction Cases filed in Argentina and Around the Globe
As recently as May 2020, Argentina opened another historic case under its universal jurisdiction provision: the investigation of the genocide and other crimes against the Rohingya people. Suspects include Myanmar’s leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi and several senior military officials. A lower court initially declined opening the case, arguing that it would overlap too much with the ongoing investigation launched by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well as the separate genocide lawsuit brought by the Gambia against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The Uyghur case should not face similar hurdles, as no international body has yet initiated proceedings over the crimes committed against the Turkic Muslim people of the Uyghur Region.
Argentina’s exercise of universal jurisdiction is an impressive example of stepping up to address egregious human rights violations currently happening around the world. It is also a story of postcolonial empowerment. In 2005, Spanish courts convicted a former Argentine military officer for crimes against humanity committed during the Argentine military dictatorship in the 1970s and 80s– under Spain’s universal jurisdiction law. Five years later, Argentine criminal courts in turn took up an investigation into the alleged commission of genocide and crimes against humanity in Spain during the Franco dictatorship from 1936-1977– also under universal jurisdiction. Twelve years after they began, proceedings in that case are ongoing.
Other recent and much-noted universal jurisdiction cases have been filed around the globe. For example, former Syrian government officials were convicted for state torture under Germany’s application of universal jurisdiction, and before that, the a former Iranian official was sentenced for the mass execution and torture of political prisoners in the 1980s by a Swedish court. While there are several countries where criminal complaints can be filed under universal jurisdiciton, Michael Polak, one of the lawyers acting for UHRP and WUC in the Uyghur case, explained that by filing in Argentina, not only would the claimants have access to universal jurisdiction, but the courts might be more likely to act given the country’s own history.
The Significance of the Case for Uyghurs and for International Justice
For years, mechanisms of international justice have failed to hold accountable those responsible for the crimes committed in the Uyghur Region. If the Argentine case is opened, the World Uyghur Congress sees a historic opportunity for the Uyghur people to have their voices heard: it would be the first time that evidence of the crimes against humanity and genocide being committed against the Uyghurs and other ethnic Turkic people is heard in court. Besides its symbolic significance, the criminal case would also have the factual and legal significance of holding government officials individually accountable for their deeds.
Establishing the facts of the crimes committed against the Uyghur people also provides a promising angle for corporate accountability– or at least more transparency regarding the connections between state abuse of minorities in the Uyghur Region and benefits for multinational companies. As witnesses are heard and further investigations conducted, more information may be unearthed about how corporations have been benefiting from detainees’ forced work in factories in the Uyghur Region.
As this case demonstrates, universal jurisdiction is an important element in the fight against impunity for human rights abuses characterized as international crimes, especially as other avenues may be blocked. For example, the ICC cannot initiate investigations in countries like the United States that have not signed the Rome Statute. And the UN Security Council cannot refer a case to the ICC if the resolution is vetoed by one of its members. The potential for addressing impunity is also reflected in the growing number of universal jurisdiction cases. 2021 alone saw 125 international criminal charges brought under universal jurisdiction and 15 convictions, all part of a global effort to push for justice. If the Uyghur genocide case is opened, it would be another landmark investigation in the fight against impunity for atrocity crimes.
