On 11 April 2000, a Belgian Magistrate issued an international arrest warrant against Mr. Yerodia. At the time, Yerodia was the Foreign Minister of the Congo.
The Court issued the warrant based on universal jurisdiction. It accused Yerodia of inciting racial hatred.
These speeches, allegedly, incited the population to attack Tutsi residents in Rwanda, which resulted in many deaths.
The warrant alleged that Yerodia committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its Additional Protocols and crimes against humanity.
Belgium sent the arrest warrant to Interpol and circulated it to all States, including to the Congo.
The warrant asked States to arrest, detain, and extradite Yerodia to Belgium.
After Belgium issued the warrant, in November 2000, Yerodia became the Education Minister. At the time of the ICJ’s judgement, he did not hold a Ministerial post in Congo.
ISSUE- Where a foreign minister is suspected of humanitarian violations, does such a minister enjoy full immunity from criminal jurisdiction in another state’s court?
Judgement –
Where a foreign minister is suspected of humanitarian violations and even war crimes, such a minister enjoys full immunity from criminal jurisdiction in another state’s court
Acting as the state’s representative in international meeting and negotiations, travelling internationally and overseeing the smooth running of the state’s diplomatic activities are duties which a foreign minister performs
The foreign minister also has the power to bind the state in the course of his duties and he must be in constant communication with his state and its diplomatic missions around the world as well as with representatives of other states. Hence, because of the office he holds and not because of his person, a minister is recognized under international law as a representative of the state.
Drawing from this submission, it can therefore be established that an acting Minister of Foreign Affairs enjoys full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability so that he or she may not be hindered in the discharge
The safety nest provided by this immunity is regardless of whether the purported crimes were committed in the minister’s “official or private” capacity and regardless of when the offense occurred. Hence on this premise, the argument of Belgium that immunities is not applicable to foreign ministers when they are accused of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity is nullified.
However and with much emphasis, immunity from jurisdiction which a serving minister enjoys does not imply that such minister take pleasure for the crimes he or she commits of have committed. of his or her duties.
As jurisdictional immunity is procedural, so too is criminal responsibility a matter of substantive law, so that jurisdictional immunity does not operate to exempt the minister who may under certain circumstances, be held accountable for his crimes.
The minister may thus be brought before the courts in his/her own state and may lose his/her immunity once his/her state waives it.
The minister also do not enjoy such immunity after he vacates office and may subsequently be charged for acts committed prior to or subsequent to the time he/she was in office as well as in respect of acts committed during the time he/she was in office in a private capacity. The International criminal courts may also try the minister where they have the jurisdiction to do so.
