There is only one short matter I have to refer to. Under Section 3, we are introducing a novel and revolutionary concept into our criminal code. We are now providing that crimes committed abroad by any national at any time can be tried in this country. I understand that in fact it is necessary that this provision be inserted in the Act in order to give effect to these Conventions and for that reason I think it is proper that the Dáil should enact it, but I should like to find out from the Minister what the position is concerning similar legislation which presumably exists in other countries. Presumably, other signatories to this Convention who have enacted similar legislation in their own country will have power to try Irish nationals in their countries for alleged breaches of any of these Conventions and I understand there is provision in the Conventions themselves by which the high contracting parties undertake, after investigation, to hand over any person to another high contracting party who, it is assumed or presumed, has committed an offence. I should like to know whether, in respect of this section, the ordinary law of extradition will apply and whether we may be required to hand over an Irish national, in the event of an allegation being made that the Irish national was resident here, to one of the other high contracting parties for trial abroad?
Committee on Finance. - Geneva Conventions Bill, 1961— Committee Stage.
In this case, Section 3, subsection 1, says
Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the State, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, any such grave breach of any of the Scheduled Conventions as is referred to in the following Articles respectively of those Conventions,
It is only in the case of "grave breaches" of these Conventions that a person can be tried here for offences outside the State. I think the same thing applies in regard to piracy.
The Minister has not quite answered my question. I want to know if it is possible to get an answer to this question: would we be required to hand over an Irish national to other countries who have had adhered to this Convention on the suggestion being made by them that that national had committed an offence which they wished to try in their country?
Eighty-two other States have already ratified this Convention. I cannot say that all of them have the same legislation as we have here but when they have ratified the Convention, I suppose it must be presumed that their legal arrangements enable them to carry it out.
Ordinarily, the criminal law is confined to the territory where a crime is committed. This State will try anyone, a national of our own or an alien, who commits a crime here. Ordinarily speaking, States do not try people who commit crimes outside their own country. There are two or three well-known exceptions. Although there is some doubt whether we would try here a citizen of ours who committed murder abroad, it is certain, according to our law, that we could try a citizen of ours who committed bigamy abroad. Under this Convention, are we now going to try people who are not our nationals and do not commit crimes here? That would be a very serious extension of the criminal law.
It is very serious. This Convention was signed by us in 1949 and I am sure the Government of the day were quite well aware of the fact that in signing the Convention, they were undertaking to pass legislation here that would enable the Convention to be operated. It is, of course, as the Deputy says, an extension of the right to try prisoners here for offences committed abroad, and in only one or two very exceptional cases is there right for the State to try people who have committed crimes abroad. There were discussions at the Geneva Convention about arrangements regarding the humane treatment of people in time of war and it was decided that a Convention of this kind was necessary. The Committees established to discuss the Convention recommended this to the various States, and 82 States have ratified the Convention.
I do not think the point which Deputy Costello put has been answered yet. We are going to exercise jurisdiction in criminal matters over people who are not nationals of our own, who being aliens do not commit a crime here. Other countries will do the same. Supposing an Irish national commits one of these crimes abroad and there is an extradition treaty between that country and ours, who in the end will try him? Will we try him because he is a national, or will they ask for him to be sent over to where the evidence is of whatever he is alleged to have done? The thing will work the other way, too. Of course it raises the question of whether in fact we have surviving any extradition treaty with any country.
We have not got extradition treaties with a number of countries.
Is it clear that we have with any?
I would not be sure. I know there are a number of countries with which we have not.
I feel sure the Minister and his advisers have gone very carefully into the necessity for this particular section and as it is drafted at the moment, we are taking power to try a Chinaman for alleged atrocities committed in Tibet. We are extending tremendously the jurisdiction of our courts here beyond anything that has been contemplated in the past. I have raised the query as to whether it is necessary to take on this obligation and to extend this jurisdiction in the manner in which it is being extended, in view of the requirements of the Convention.
The Conventions, as I understand them, require the contracting parties to enact legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions against persons who commit grave breaches of the Conventions. The Conventions go on to require that the high contracting parties will search for persons alleged to have committed grave breaches of these Conventions and bring them before their own courts. It seems to me, at any rate, that the high contracting parties have undertaken to enact legislation to make some of these offences penal in their own countries and, secondly, to search for alleged offenders against this Convention. It seems to me that the Conventions do not go so far as to require the high contracting parties to enact legislation to give such power as we are giving in this Bill to prosecute a person, a national of a country, for example, in the Far East, for having committed offences, for example, in the United States of America. That is the power we are giving under Section 3.
If the Deputy will look at the Conventions themselves: "Article 50 of the Convention set out in the First Schedule to this Act; Article 51 of the Convention set out in the Second Schedule to this Act; Article 130 of the Convention set out in the Third Schedule to this Act; or Article 147 of the Convention set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act." To carry out these articles, and to fulfil the obligation which we undertook when we signed the Convention —and I am advised that we have to have this section in order to carry out our obligations—in accordance with our practice, we have to have the legislation before we proceed to ratify it. Already 82 nations have ratified it and have undertaken to carry out these Articles in the Convention. This section of the Bill is to enable us to fulfil our obligations under it.
This becomes part of our domestic law, if passed, and recognised by our courts. Is that not so?
Section 4?
The whole Act will become part of the domestic law?
It is to enable the courts and the Government to carry out their functions.
It gives those operating the criminal law the right to try foreigners who commit any of these offences?
Any of these offences, yes.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In subsection (2), page 5, lines 10 and 11, to delete "paragraph (ii)” and substitute “subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b)”.
This is only a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In subsection (3), page 5, lines 21 and 22, to delete “paragraph (ii)” and substitute “subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b)”.
This is another drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In subsection (2), page 5, line 61, to delete "of"and substitute "or".
This is to correct a printing error.
Would the Minister tell us what are the grave offences provided under Article 51? I understand that grave offences under Article 50 are substantially torture and looting.
What Schedule is the Deputy on?
Article 51 of the Convention as set out in the Second Schedule. What are the grave breaches described in that Second Schedule? I can find what are the grave breaches in the First Schedule.
They are also set out in the front of the Second Schedule. They are the same type of offence.
Are they?
I will get them in a second. It is a very voluminous document.
It is.
They are set out in Article 3 of the Second Schedule and they are on all fours with the grave offences under the other Conventions, that is, violence to life and person, the taking of hostages, outrages upon personal dignity and the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement. They are the same set of grave breaches. I think they are in all the Conventions.
Report Stage?
Now.
Agreed to take all Stages today?
I should like some information about the extradition treaty situation. Could that not be given next week?
Yes, it could.
Is there any great rush about this?
I should like to get it to the Seanad next week, if possible.
I am asking for a slight adjournment in order to get the Minister to make the position clear regarding countries with which we have extradition arrangements.
Suppose the Minister orders it for tomorrow?
Yes; that will be all right.
The Minister might have the information then.