Analisis Kasus Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann

1. Pada
pasal 6 Konvensi Genosida Tahun 1948, yang mana Israel adalah Negara anggota
yang telah meratifikasi Konvensi tersebut pada tahun 1950, telah mengatur bahwa
“tersangka kejahatan harus diadili di wilayah dimana kejahatan tersebut
dilakukan” atau dari “pengadilan
internasional yang mempunyai yurisdiksi dengan menghormati negara-negara yang
akan menerima yurisdiksi”. Dewan Keamanan juga menyetujui sebuah resolusi,[1]
berisi tuntutan bahwa pelaku kejahatan diadili di pangadilan yang sesuai. Maka
untuk mengadili suatu kejahatan kemanusiaan, bukan berarti Pengadilan Israel
adalah pengadilan yang sesuai, karena kejahatan yang dilakukan Eichmann bukan
berada di wilayah Israel, terlebih lagi tersangka pelaku kejahatan diculik
kemudian diadili oleh hukum nasionalnya sendiri.

2. Maka
sesuai maklumat pasal 6 Konvensi Genosida Tahun 1948, Pengadilan yang sesuai
untuk mengadili kejahatan kemanusiaan seperti yang dilakukan Eichmann adalah
Nuremberg Tribunal.

3. Nuremberg
Tribunal memiliki kompetensi untuk mengadili individual yang bertanggungjawab
atas pelanggaran individu terhadap crimes
against peace, war crimes, dan crimes against humanity.[2]
Maka Nuremberg Tribunal sesuai seperti yang dimaktubkan pasal 6 Konvensi
Genosida Tahun 1948 mengenai “international
penal tribunal with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have
accepted its jurisdiction”.

Penangkapan Seseorang Melewati Batas Wilayah Negara

4.
Argentina mengadukan tentang penangkapan
Eichmann kepada Dewan Keamanan bahwa penangkapan tersebut telah melanggar
kedaulatan Argentina dan meminta ganti rugi kepada Israel. Di dalam putusannya,
Mahkamah Agung kemudian menilai dikarenakan Joint Decision antara Argentina dan
Israel pada 3 Agustus 1960, Argentina telah melepaskan pengaduannya. Mahkamah
Agung juga menggunakan doktrin male captus bene detentus (“wrongly
captured, properly detained”) sebagai justifikasi atas penangkapan Eichmann.

5. Namun,
Pasal 9 dalam Universal Declaration on Human Rights dengan tegas telah mengatur
bahwa tak seorangpun boleh ditangkap, ditahan atau dibuang sewenang-wenang. Amnesty
International dalam laporannya[3]
mencatat bahwa doktrin male captus bene
detentus pun hanya diterima di Amerika Serikat saja. Beberapa kasus terkait
penangkapan di luar batas wilayah nasional, seperti di United Kingdom,^{^[4]}
New Zealand^{^[5]}
dan Afrika Selatan^{^[6]}
telah menolak penangkapan tersangka yang illegal ini. Setelah 1962, banyak
organisasi pemerintahan telah menolak penangkapan illegal semacam ini,
contohnya Human Rights Committee,^{^[7]}
the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention,^{^[8]}
UN Special Procedures,^{^[9]}
the Human Rights Council,^{^[10]}
dan the European Commission on Human Rights^{^[11]}.

[1]

[2]
Art. 6, Charter of The International Military Tribunal,

[3]Amnesty
International Publication, “Eichmann Supreme Court Judgment 50 Years on, It’s
Significance Today”, 2012.

[4] R
v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court.ex parte Bennett (England, House of
Lords) [1994]

[5] R
v. Hartley (New Zealand, Court of Appeal) [1978]

[6]
State v. Ebrahim (South Africa, Supreme Court (Appellate Division)) 1991

[7]
Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Communication No. R.12/52, U.N. Doc.
Supp. No. 40

(A/36/40) at 176 (1981) (finding a violation "of
article 9 (1) because the act of abduction into Uruguayan territory constituted
an arbitrary arrest and detention")(http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/session36/12-52.htm);
García v. Ecuador (Human Rights Committee), Comm. No. 319/1988, UN Doc. A/47/40
(1994), pp. 287–90; Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay (Human Rights Committee),
Comm. No. 56/1979, Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, pp. 92–94.

[8] Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1994/27 (1993), pp.
139-140.

[9]
Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, Report on mission to
the United States

of America, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/6/17/Add.3, 22 November 2007,
para. 36 (stating, in the context of the

transfer of a person from one jurisdiction to another,
that “the removal of a person outside legally prescribed procedures amounts to
an unlawful detention in violation of article 9 (1) of the ICCPR, andraises
other human rights concerns if a detainee is not given a chance to challenge
the transfer."); Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret
Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism of the Special Rapporteur on
the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while
Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin; the Special Rapporteur on Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment, Manfred Nowak; the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Represented by Its Vice-Chair, Shaheen
Sardar Ali; and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
represented by its Chair, Jeremy Sarkin, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/13/42, 19 February
2010, para 292 (g) ("Transfers or the facilitation of transfers from one State
to the custody of authorities of another State must be carried out under
judicial supervision and in line with international standards.").

[10] 4
Human Rights Council, Res. 19/19, 23 March 2012, para. 12 (noting with concern
“measures that can undermine human rights and the rule of law, such as the
illegal deprivation of liberty and transfer of individuals suspected of
terrorist activities, and the return of suspects to countries without
individual assessment of the risk of there being substantial grounds for believing
that they would be in danger of subjection to torture, and limitations to
effective scrutiny of counter-terrorism measures[.]").

[11]
Stocké v. Federal Republic of Germany (European Commission of Human Rights, 12
Oct. 1989) 95

ILR 328, 332–3

Kunjungi Juga :