Abstract
In this paper. the rules of the EU and the Council of Europe and the jurisprudence of the ECHR, on criminalisation of denial or justification of genocide are analysed, more specifically the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis in the Second War World. In view of the emergence of neo-Nazi parties and Nazi violence in other areas, such as football, it is concluded that it is appropriate to include the criminalisation of justification of Nazi genocide in the European criminal codes, when this is done with racist intent and seeking to reopen similar practices. Existing legislation in the field of international and European law is examined and some of its deficiencies have been pointed out, proposing some lege ferenda guidelines, in agreement with that indicated in Recommendation No. 7 of the ECRI, which is not a legislative text, suggesting. according to the author’s opinion. that the criminal offence of denial of genocide should be reduced to the justification of the Nazi Holocaust, according to the jurisprudence of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 April 1945, or at most, strictly to the genocides recognised by International Courts, and that the crime should not be extended to crimes against humanity or war crimes. Finally, it is noted that the term “genocide” in relation to the criminalisation of its justification today, should be used as a legal concept, referring only to genocide declared as such by international tribunals, after the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, so the criminal offence of denial of genocide should not be applied to historical events prior to that date. On the one hand, the legally protected good would be the equal dignity of every human person, combined with other rights such as freedom of expression and opinión, as well as freedom of research. In this context of criminal proceedings, the recommendations of the ECRI distinguish between hate speech with its different forms of crime and denial of genocide as a crime framed within the previous (crimes), but with a specific offense. The wrongdoing aimed at being prevented is racial discrimination or injury to the person’s dignity. It is suggested that discourses of denial and/or justification of genocide should be addressed within the crimes of racial discrimination and those cases in which this discourse takes on the form of a public denial, trivialization, justification or condonation of crimes of genocide, whose existence has been recognised by the courts, should be considered as a special form of hate speech It must respond also to the intention of denigrating or stigmatizing individuals or groups because of their race, religion, nationality or ethnic or national origin. The criminalisation of this speech is related to its objective, which is to hurt individuals or groups. What follows is that there must be incitement or provocation to denigrate individuals or groups, which requires wilful misconduct with racist intent and that the speech is made in public. The unjust part is the generation of a certain risk of unlawful acts against persons or groups. Two other features that must come together to give rise to a crime of hate speech is that speech should reflect or foster an unjustified assumption that the person giving it considers him/herself to be superior to the person or group of persons being criticised. Moreover, the intention of this speech must be to incite or reasonably expect the effect of inciting others to commit acts of violence, intimidation, hostility or discrimination against those targeted by the critical discourse, as, in this way, this is a particularly serious form of speech of hate.
The author is Full Professor of the Philosophy of Law at the University of Zaragoza and an independent expert of the ECRI, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe, for the 2013–2017 legislature. The opinions given in this article are made in agreement with her academic research and not as a member of this organisation. This research has been developed thanks to a study visit carried out to the General Directorate of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, under the supervision of Dr. Alfonso de Salas, Head of the Human Rights Intergovernmental Cooperation Division of the Council of Europe, Directorate 1, consulting the bibliographic collections and databases of the library of the European Court of Human Rights. I would also like to thank its director, Nora Binder, for the help she offered me.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Framework decision 2008/913/JHA, of 20 November 2008, on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia via criminal law (DOUE L 328, 6 December 2008).
- 2.
Although the jurisprudence of the ECHR also focuses on other attempts to reconstruct new left-wing dictatorships in Europe today, this is not our topic in this article.
- 3.
Article 6 of the International Criminal Court: “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.
- 4.
Cf., Separate opinion of Judge Jorge Rodríguez-Zapata Pérez, respect to the judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court of 7 November 2007, referring to the crime of disseminating ideas that deny or justify crimes of genocide, Judgment of Spanish Constitutional Court (STC) 235/2007. Question of unconstitutionality 5152-2000. Proposed by Section Three of the Provincial Court of Barcelona with respect to article 607.2 of the Criminal Code.
- 5.
For the additional Protocol to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, of 23 November 2001, racist and xenophobic material means “any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors” (Article 2.1).
Article 1 of the Proposal for a Framework Decision, on combating racism and xenophobia, approved by the Council of the European Union at meeting on 20 April 2007, establishes the obligation for the Member States of the European Union to take the measures necessary to ensure that publically condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide crimes is punishable, when “the conduct is executed in such a way that it might involve incitement to violence or hatred in respect of the social group affected”. Therefore, for its penalisation it is necessary to have an element tending towards incitement to hatred. In other words, intention or publicity is required.
The criterion that is derived from applying this crime in national European courts is that for there to be a crime incitement to racial hatred suffices, be it indirect or mediate (direct incitement is not required). As indicated by Judge Ramon Rodriguez Arribas, also referring to the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, “The so-called “denialism” is itself at the very least a clear expression of contempt shown towards the victims who suffered, and thus it really occurs on several occasions in the shape of those who maintain, for example, that the holocaust did not exist and that it is merely part of Zionist propaganda; to aim to protect such attitudes under the umbrella of freedom of expression is to degrade that right; on the contrary, and as the Public Prosecutor maintains, such attitudes are conducive to creating states of distorted opinion on this historic event, certainly contrary to what really occurred, thus attempting to encourage people to forget what really, and so the precept does not attempt to punish the free dissemination of ideas or opinions, however morally reprehensible and repugnant they may be, but rather to protect society from those behaviours which, through a systematic psychological preparation of the population, using propaganda media, would generate a climate of violence and hostility which through the media could result in specific acts of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination; certainly this is a risk that a democratic society cannot afford to run in present day circumstances, where it cannot be denied that such attitudes are returning” (dissident vote by Judge Ramon Rodríguez Arribas to Judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court 5152-2000, no. 4, BOE (Official State Gazette), no. 295, Supplement, Monday 10 December 2007, p. x56).
- 6.
ECHR (Grand Chamber), Perinçek v. Switzerland, Application no. 27510/08, 15th October 2015.
- 7.
It exists from 2004 this concrete Recommendation on antisemitism, ECRI, General Policy Recommendation nº 9, the fight against anti-Semitism. Adopted on 25 June 2004.
- 8.
Cf., Hare, I, Weinstein, J (2009) Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Teruel Lozano, G (2015) La lucha del derecho contra el negacionismo: una peligrosa frontera. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Madrid, 615 pp.
- 9.
Imbleau, M (2011) Denial of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity. In: Hennebel, L and Thomas Hochmann, TH (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 235. Who also quotes a Barahoma de Brito, A (2001) Truth, Justice, Memory and Democratization in the Southern Cone. In: Barahoma de Brito A et al. (eds), The Politics of Memory–Transitional Justice in Democratizing Societies. Oxford Studies in Democratization, Oxford, p. 160.
- 10.
See, for example, the Belgium Legislation. In 1995, Belgium introduced the crime against denial of the Shoah into its criminal law. The law of 23 March 1995 punishes “anyone who denies, minimises, justifies or approves the genocide committed by the German national-socialist regime during the Second World War”. Until then, the law of 30 July 198 existed to repress acts inspired by racism or xenophobia , called “Moureaux Law”. Later on, the Law of 10 May 2007 entered into force, amending the law of 30 July 1981 to repress certain acts inspired by racism and xenophobia. Dubuisson, F (2008) L’incrimination générique du négationnisme est-elle conciliable avec le droit à la liberté d´expression?, Revue de la Faculté de Droit, Université Libre de Bruxelles, volume 35, 1 Semestriel, (2007), Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp. 135–195. Bertrams K, Olivier De Broux, O (2008) Du négationnisme au devoir de mémoire: l´histoire est-elle prisonnière ou gardienne de la liberté d´expressión?, Revue de la Faculté de Droit, Université Libre de Bruxelles, volume 35, 1 Semestriel, (2007), Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp. 75–134. Françoise Tulkens, F (2008) Les relations entre le négationnisme et les droits de l´homme. La jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des droits de l´homme. In: Law in the Changing Europe/Le droit dans une Europe en changement. Liber Amicorum Pranas Kuris, Mykolo Romerio Universitetas, Vilnius, pp. 425–445. AA.VV, (2008) Les propos qui heurtent, choquent ou inquiètent, Revue de la Faculté de Droit, Université Libre de Bruxelles, volume 35, 1 Semestriel, (2007), Bruylant, Bruxelles.
- 11.
Fronza, E (2011) The Criminal Protection of Memory: Some Observations About the Offence of Holocaust Denial. In Genocide Denials and the Law, op. c., p. 175, section “The Judge as Historian?”.
- 12.
This has occurred among other European countries, such as for instance, in France, Germany, Belgium and Spain.
- 13.
Although these constitutional decisions and own legislations still receive a lot of criticism within the legal world, too, from those who consider that freedom of expression is a priority at all cost in a democratic society.
- 14.
Many reports of the ECRI on member countries of the European Council provide data of the few occasions that these criminal offences are applied. See web site http://coe.int.ecri.
- 15.
Resolution adopted by consensus on 26 January 2007 at the General Assembly of the United Nations, condemning the denial of the Jewish Genocide. Adopted and proposed for signature and ratification, or accession, by the General Assembly resolution 260 A (III), 9 December 1948. Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII.
- 16.
The latter also affects the legislation of countries of the European Council that have been under communist rule. Thus, some of them, such as Hungary, have introduced the re-attempt to re-establish communism as a crime. In many others, the controversy about the recognition of victims of crimes committed by Lenin and Stalin are still red-hot.
- 17.
In the case of the Spaniard, Pedro Varela Geiss it is, in fact, true that he is a history graduate, but he is not an academic, but rather, the owner of the bookshop “Europa” in Barcelona.
- 18.
Cfr., Definition of Wikipedia, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negacionismo_del_Holocausto. The arguments used by the denialist philosopher, Garaudy, in his defence before the ECHR are a good example of the strategy used by denialists. Roger Garaudy v. France, no. 6531/01, ECHR, Section four, decision on admissibility, 24 June 2003. According to this author, the number of Jews who died in Auschwitz is not six million, but two thirds less, but he provides these figures with the sole objective of showing that the horror of Nazi genocide does not lie in the figures, but, ≪in unfair suffering≫, that are not ≪deniable≫ (point 6. e). Insofar as the gas chambers are concerned, he alleges that he quotes serious studies such as those by the engineer, Leuchter (point f), that this cannot be considered a denialist act, that when he uses the term “business of the Shoah” de does not do so to deny the genocide (no. 8). He invokes article 14 of the Agreement on equal treatment to say that it is unfair that preferential treatment has been given to the Jews in detriment of other equally persecuted groups, such as the gypsies, homosexuals, slaves, Armenians and Tutsis (No. 10). He complains of being a victim of discrimination due to having been convicted for using the term “Jewish lobby” (no. 11).
- 19.
Imbleau, M op. c., p. 235.
- 20.
According to Koenraad Elst, in http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negacionismo_del_Holocausto.
- 21.
Ibarra, E (2012) Grupos de odio y realidad social. In Grupos de odio y violencias sociales, editorial SL Rasche and Pereira-Menaut, Madrid, p. 13. Véase índice de la monografía en http://www.editorialrasche.es/imagenes/libros/indice/libro-10.pdf.
- 22.
Idem.
- 23.
Cf., Country by Country Reports available on the website of ECRI, https://www.ecri.org
Parallel to the increase in Islamophobia following 2001, due to different reasons. Although the neo-Nazi movements also usually go against immigrants in general, including those of Moslem origin, a different matter is that their anti-Israeli objective leads to curious unions between neo-Nazis and Islamic governments such as the Iranian government.
- 24.
Currently more than 8000 Jews have moved to Israel following the killing of three school children at a Jewish school in Toulouse and there are 10,000 on the waiting list as a result of the killing at the Kosher supermarket in Paris on 9 January 2015.
- 25.
Pech L (2011a) The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe. In: Hennebel L, Hochmann. Th (eds), Genocide Denials and the Law, op. c., p. 199 (pp. 183–226). The incident consisted in that, in May 1990 in the city of Carpentra in south-east France, near Avignon, a Jewish cemetery was profaned. Six individuals, known for their sympathy towards the neo-Nazis were convicted. The so-called Gayssot Act, Act no. 90-6615, introduced in France on 13 July 1900, section 24a in the Law of Freedom of press of 1881, with a prison sentence of one year or a fine of 45,000 Euros to whoever denied (contester) the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined in article 6 of the statute of the International Military Court attached to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, which may have been committed either by members of a declared criminal organisation under article 9 of the Statute or by a person found guilty of such crimes by a French or international court.
- 26.
- 27.
Idem, p. 237.
- 28.
Hocmann, Th (2011) The Denier Intent. In: Genocide Denials and the Law, op. c., p. 283. It describes the psychology of the denialist.
- 29.
Cf., Hocmann, Th (2011) The Denier Intent, op. c. As seen in the report of the ECHR on different countries of the European Council, there is no type of logical reasoning in the more and more violent behaviour of the groups of hooligans in football who assume a neo-Nazi ideology. It is well known, too, that the Spanish neo-Nazi librarian, Pedro Varela Geiss, refused to participate in courses on Judaism during his stay in prison. Cf,. García, J (2012) The Nazi, Varela sows swastikas in prison. El País, 15 January 2012. “The prison officers thought that it would be a good idea for him to participate in courses and chats with the Jewish community and anti-racist organisations”. Available at: http://elpais.com/diario/2012/01/15/domingo/1326603160_850215.html (Consulted on 16 January 2013).
- 30.
Cf., Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, & Ngeze. Case no. ICTR 99-52-T. Judgment and Sentence. in http://www.ictr.org. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, December 3, 2003. Comment on judgement by Mackinnon, C (2004) International Decisions. Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, & Ngeze. American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, January, pp. 325–330.
- 31.
Bustos Gisbert, R (2015) Libertad de expresión y discurso negacionista. In: Revenga, M (ed) Libertad de expresión y discursos del odio. Universidad de Alcalá, Servicio de Publicaciones, Alcalá.
- 32.
Pech, L (2011b) Ruling Denial Prohibition. In: Genocides Denial and the Law, op. c., p. 223.
- 33.
Cfr, Dubuisson, F (2008) L’incrimination générique du négationnisme est-elle conciliable avec le droit à la liberté d´expression?, op. c., p. 191.
- 34.
In this, it coincides, as we will see later, with the Protocol of the European Council against Cybercrime, with the difference that the Framework Decision is compulsory whilst the Protocol is optional.
- 35.
In contrast, as we have mentioned previously, the Gayssot act criminalises anyone who questions the existence of crimes against humanity defined in article 6 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal attached to the Agreement of London of 8 August 1945. The French legislation considers, not the denial of the Holocaust as an offence, but questioning the existence of crimes against humanity, which are those specifically defined by the acts established in the legal historical document of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal. In fact, there is no specific mention in the Gayssot Act about the Holocaust, the Shoah or the Jews, but it is the denial of the responsibility of individuals or groups that has been declared by the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg or by a French Court. See Fraser, D (2011) From Genocide to Denial. In: Hennebel L, and Hochmann, T (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law, op. c., p. 21.
- 36.
See, Fraser, D (2011). Idem, pp. 29–30.
- 37.
As contrast, see Recommendation no. 7 of the ECHR that demands that these conducts be public in order to be criminalised.
- 38.
Ternon, Y (2007) La négation du génocide: une approche comparative. In: Lefevbre, B, Ferhadjian, S (dirs) Comprende les génocides du XX siècle, Éditions Bréal, Rosny-sous-bois, pp. 154 and foll. Ternon, Y (1999)Négationnismes: règles générales et cas particulièrs. In: Boustany K, Dormory, D (eds) Génocides, Éditions Bruylant et Éditions de l´Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, pp. 143 and foll.
- 39.
Dubuisson, D (2008) L´incrimination générique du négationnisme est-elle conciliable avec le droit à la liberté d´expression?, op. c., p. 193.
- 40.
- 41.
The discussion in France continues to be red-hot faced with the introduction of new legislations that forbid the denial of certain historical events. Shameful events have occurred in France such as the civil action against the French historian, Bernard Lewish, who has been convicted for giving his opinion that the massacre of the Armenians does not satisfy the requirements to be considered as a genocide. T.G. I, Paris, 21 June 1995. CDCA et Liera c. Bernard Lewis. As well as another report against Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, an action that was finally abandoned, due to his play on the Slave trade in France. “Laissons les historiens faire leur métier ¡”, in Entretien avec Françoise Chandernagor, L’Histoire, no 306, février 2006. Available at http://histoirepresse.fr.: Also cf., “Retrait de la plainte contre un historien de l’esclavage”, Le Monde, 4 février 2006.
- 42.
Pavón Pérez, J.A (2003) La labor del Consejo de Europa en la lucha contra la cibercriminalidad: El Protocolo adicional al Convenio no 185 sobre cibercriminalidad relativo a la incriminación de actos de naturaleza racista y xenófobos cometidos a través de los sistemas informáticos, Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho, ISSN 0213-988-X, vol. XXI, 187–204. Here p. 194.
- 43.
The information on the current state of the signatures, ratifications, statements and reservations is reflected on the website that is indicated in this note. As in the case of all the conventions of the European Council, the list of instruments, including basic information on each one of them (table of signatures and ratifications, date of entry into force, list of reservations, declarations and communications by the states, integral text of the convention, summary of the content and explanatory report) is available in the two official languages of the European Council (French and English) and also in Italian, German and Russian on the website of the organisation (http://conventions.coe.int/Default.asp).
- 44.
Spain signed the convention on 23 November 2001 and ratified it by instrument of 20 May 2010 (BOE of 17 September 2010)-EDL 2001/97504, and it entered into force in this country on 1 October 2010. Cf., http://conventions.coe.int. Albania, Germany, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Slovenia, Spain (The Government, in Council of Ministers of 21 March 2014 referred it to the General Parliament). Finland, France, Latvia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine. See Eduardo Fungairiño Bringas (Prosecutor of the Supreme Court Chamber), Prontuario actualizado de convenios de extradición y otros de cooperación judicial internacional penal, Registered in the Intellectual Property Register with no. 16/2011/4970. Updated on 2 May 2014. Available on website: https://wikipenal.wikispaces.com/file/view/PACO,%20HASTA%202%20DE%20MAYO%202014.pdf/508338986/PACO,%20HASTA%202%20DE%20MAYO%202014.pdf
- 45.
Cf., art. 2.
- 46.
Cf., art. 3.
- 47.
Cf., art. 4.
- 48.
Cf., art. 5. The latter is repeated as in art. 4.
- 49.
Cf, Alastuey, C (2014) La reforma de los delitos de provocación al odio y justificación del genocidio en el Proyecto de Ley de 2013: consideraciones críticas, Diario La Ley, Año XXXV, Number 8245, Thursday, 6 February 2014, pp. 1–12, which contains an extensive bibliography that reflects upon the doctrinal discussion between Spanish criminalists (p. 10).
- 50.
TPIY, Le Procureur c/ R.Krstic, Chambre de première instance, jugement du 2 août 2001 et Chambre d´appel, arrêt du 19 avril 2004, http://www.un.org/icty/index-f.html.
- 51.
C.I.J., affaire de l´Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzegovine c. Serbie-et-Monténégro), arrêt du 26 févrie 2007, http://www.icj-cij.org.
- 52.
TPIY, Chambre I, Le Procureur c/J.-P. Akayesu, jugement du 2 septembre 1998, http://www.un.org/icty/index-f.html.
- 53.
Mixed tribunal, whose creation has been entrusted to the Secretary General of the United Nations Security Council, by decision 1315 of 14 August 2000.
- 54.
Mixed tribunal, created by agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanon. Decision 1757, adopted by the United Nations Security Council, on 30 May 2007.
- 55.
- 56.
List of declarations and reservations formulated respect to the Treaty no. 189, http://conventions.coe.int.
- 57.
Cf, Alastuey, C (2014) La reforma de los delitos de provocación al odio y justificación del genocidio en el Proyecto de Ley de 2013: consideraciones críticas, Diario La Ley, op.c., passim.
- 58.
See the opinion of the historian Steinberg M (2006) Notre responsabilité, Politique, no 47, décembre, p. 31. (Quoted by Buisson, F. op. c., p. 172, note 89). And the opinion of the jurist, Schabas, W.A (2001) Was Genocide Committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? First Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia, Fordham International, L.J., Vol 25, p. 46. Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol25/iss1/2
Chrostakis, T, Bannelier, K (2007) Qu´est ce qu´un génocide et quand un État est-il responsable pour ce crime? Analyse de l´ârret rendu par la CIJ dans l´affaire Bosnie c. Serbie-et-Montenegro, 26 février 2007, R. B. D. I., 2007.
- 59.
Martín Sánchez, I (2012) El discurso del odio en el ámbito del Consejo de Europa, Revista General de Derecho Canónico y Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, 28, pp. 1–33. Here p. 5.
- 60.
ECRI, Recommandation de politique générale no 7 de l’ECRI sur la législation nationales pour lutter contre le racisme et la discrimination raciales, adoptée le 13 décembre 2002, Strasbourg, Secrétariat de l’ECRI, Direction générale des droits de l’homme_DG II, Conseil de l’Europe, 17 February 2003, paragraph 41 on paragraph 18 of the Recommendation.
- 61.
Lipstadt, D (1994) Denying the Holocaust—The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Penguin Books Limited, London, p. 74. The book was first published in America in 1993, by Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster. It was republished in the United Kingdom in 1994 by Plume, a Penguin division.
- 62.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation Nº 15 on combating Hate Speech, preamble.
- 63.
Cf., Idem.
- 64.
Cf., ECRI, Explanatory Memorandum to General Policy Recommendation Nº 15 on combating Hate Speech, number 16.
- 65.
Idem.
- 66.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation Nº 15 on combating Hate Speech, preamble.
- 67.
Idem.
- 68.
Cf., ECRI, Explanatory Memorandum to General Policy Recommendation Nº 15 on combating Hate Speech, p. 8, number 16.
- 69.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation Nº 15 on combating Hate Speech, preamble.
- 70.
Cf., Idem.
- 71.
ECRI, Explanatory Memorandum to General Policy Recommendation Nº 15 on combating Hate Speech, p. 4.
- 72.
ECHR, Handyside v. United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, paragraph 49. Haarscher, G (2007) La répression du négationnisme est-elle philosophiquement justifiable?, Communication au Colloque International Négationnisme (s)-Genocide&Denial, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.
- 73.
Art. 10.2: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others”.
- 74.
Wachsmann, P (2001) Liberté d´expression et négationnisme, Revue trimestrielle du Droits de l´homme, numéro spécial Le droit face à la montée du racisme et de la xénophobie, p. 587.
- 75.
Roth. R (2004) Le juge et l´histoire. In: Boisson de Chazournes, J, Quéguiner, S. Villalpando, S (eds.), Crime de l´Histoire et réparations: les réponses du droit et de la justice, Bruylant, Editions de l´Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, pp. 4–5. Among historians there is a real controversy, especially in France, due to the Gayssot Act and subsequent acts.
- 76.
Statute of the Tribunal of Nuremberg and its jurisprudence.
- 77.
Belgium, Germany, France.
- 78.
Tulkens, F. op. c., p. 429.
- 79.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, rêquete nº 1747/62, décision X. v. Austria, of 13 December 1963.
- 80.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, rêquete nº 92351/81, décision X. v. República federal de Alemania, of 16 July 1982. The European Commission of Human Rights is also significant (not published), décision Felderer vs. Sweden, of 1 July 1985. The plaintiff had disseminated a drawing of a nude man, called Zyklon B. Goldman (name of the product that was used in the gas chambers) wherein his introduction into a gas chamber was presented as factors of beauty and health.
- 81.
- 82.
Tulkens, F. op. c., p. 433.
- 83.
Lawless c. Ireland, ECHR, nº 3, of 1 July 1961, paragraph 7.
- 84.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Partie Communiste de l´Allemagne c. Allemagne, of 20 July 1957.
- 85.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Glasenapp c. Germany, of 11 May 1984, paragraph 110.
- 86.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Kühnen v. The Federal Republic of Germany, of 12 May 1988.
- 87.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Walendy v. Germany, of 11 January 1995.
- 88.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Remer v. Germany, of 6 September 1995.
- 89.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Honsik v. Austria, of 18 October 1995.
- 90.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision National-democratic Party of Germany (N.P.D.) Beziksverband Múnchen-Oberbayern v. Germany, of 29 November 1995.
- 91.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Rebhandl v. Austria, of 16 January 1996.
- 92.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Marais v. France, of 24 June 1996.
- 93.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision D.I. v Germany, of 26 June 1996.
- 94.
Commission européenne des Droits de l´homme, Décision Nachtmann v. Germany, of 9 September 1998.
- 95.
Levinet, M (2004) La fermeté bienvenue de la Cour européenne des droits de l´homme face au négationnisme. OBs.S/ La decisión du 24 juin 2003, Garaudy v. France, Revue trimestrielle des Droits de l´homme, p. 656 (pp. 653–662). Available at: http://www.rtdh.eu/pdf/2004653.pdf.
- 96.
Tulkens, F. op. c., p. 435.
- 97.
Lehideux and Isorni v. France, ECHR of 23 September 1998, paragraph 47. In judgment Jersild v. Denmark, ECHR of 23 September 1994, it appears that article 1 is implicitly used.
- 98.
The Spanish case of Pedro Varela Geiss is a good exponent of what I am trying to reflect. So much so that it has managed to raise a question of unconstitutionality before the Spanish Constitutional Court. STC 235/2007. Question of unconstitutionality 5152-2000. Posed by Section Three of the provincial court of Barcelona with respect to article 607.2 of the Criminal Code. He also won an action against Spain before the ECHR (Subject Varela Geiss v. Spain, ECHR, Section three, Action no. 61005/009, 5 March 2013), and the Government of Spain ended up having to pay him 8000 Euros for moral harm and 5000 for costs. The judgment of the ECHR is right because Varela in effect managed to get one of the Spanish courts to commit a formal procedural error. Despite this, and despite the question of unconstitutionality, which in theory favoured him, he was firstly sentenced to seven months’ prison, which he had to complete. Finally, the Public Prosecutor did not back down and the Provincial Court of Barcelona, in a new report, sentenced him to two years and nine months, which he also completed. But the majority doctrine of the Constitutional Court has caused confusion among the judges, and the result is that the Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber two, Judgment no. 259/2011, of 12 April 2011, due to overwhelming majority, in the case of the Kalki bookshop, absolved those involved, after a judgment that covered more than 250 sheets of paper, with a description of the facts that did not seem to leave any doubt about their subsumption in the current existing types of offence of racism (art. 510 CP) and justification of genocide (art. 702.2 CP).
- 99.
This is also undeniable.
- 100.
Décision Wittzsch v. Germany, ECHR, 20 April 1999.
- 101.
Roger Garaudy v. Francia, no. 6531/01, CEHR, Section four, decision on the admissibility, 24 June 2003. The judges included Bratza, Costa, Casadevall, Borrego-Borrego, among others.
- 102.
Tulkens, F. op. c., p. 439. Mcgonagle T (2007) is of the same opinion, Normes juridiques internationales et européennes relatives à la lutte contre les expressions racistes, en Commission européenne contre le racisme et l´intolérance. Lutter contre le racisme tout en respectant la liberté d´expression, Éditions du Conseil de l´Europe, Strasbourg, p. 58.
References
AA.VV, (2008) Les propos qui heurtent, choquent ou inquiètent, Revue de la Faculté de Droit, Université Libre de Bruxelles, volume 35, 1 Semestriel, (2007), Bruylant, Bruxelles.
Alastuey, C (2014) La reforma de los delitos de provocación al odio y justificación del genocidio en el Proyecto de Ley de 2013: consideraciones críticas, Diario La Ley, Año XXXV, Number 8245, Thursday, 6 February 2014, pp. 1–12.
Barahoma de Brito, A (2001) Truth, Justice, Memory and Democratization in the Southern Cone. In: Barahoma de Brito A et al (eds), The Politics of Memory–Transitional Justice in Democratizing Societies. Oxford Studies in Democratization, Oxford.
Bustos Gisbert, R (2015) Libertad de expresión y discurso negacionista. In: Revenga, M (ed) Libertad de expresión y discursos del odio. Universidad de Alcalá, Servicio de Publicaciones, Alcalá.
Chrostakis, T, Bannelier, K (2007) Qu’est ce qu’un génocide et quand un État est-il responsable pour ce crime? Analyse de l’ârret rendu par la CIJ dans l’affaire Bosnie c. Serbie-et-Montenegro, 26 février 2007, R. B. D. I., 2007.
Dubuisson, F (2008) L’incrimination générique du négationnisme est-elle conciliable avec le droit à la liberté d’expression?, Revue de la Faculté de Droit, Université Libre de Bruxelles, volume 35, 1 Semestriel, (2007), Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp. 135–195. Bertrams K, Olivier De Broux, O (2008) Du négationnisme au devoir de mémoire: l’histoire est-elle prisonnière ou gardienne de la liberté d’expressión?, Revue de la Faculté de Droit, Université Libre de Bruxelles, volume 35, 1 Semestriel, (2007), Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp. 75–134.
Eduardo Fungairiño Bringas (Prosecutor of the Supreme Court Chamber), Prontuario actualizado de convenios de extradición y otros de cooperación judicial internacional penal, Registered in the Intellectual Property Register with no. 16/2011/4970. Updated on 2 May 2014. Available on website: https://wikipenal.wikispaces.com/file/view/PACO,%20HASTA%202%20DE%20MAYO%202014.pdf/508338986/PACO,%20HASTA%202%20DE%20MAYO%202014.pdf
Françoise Tulkens, F (2008) Les relations entre le négationnisme et les droits de l’homme. La jurisprudence de la Cour Européenne des droits de l’homme. In: Law in the Changing Europe/Le droit dans une Europe en changement. Liber Amicorum Pranas Kuris, Mykolo Romerio Universitetas, Vilnius, pp. 425–445.
Fraser, D (2011) From Genocide to Denial. In: Hennebel L, and Hochmann, T (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law.
Fronza, E (2011) The Criminal Protection of Memory: Some Observations About the Offence of Holocaust Denial. In Genocide Denials and the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
García, J (2012) The Nazi, Varela sows swastikas in prison. El País, 15 January 2012. http://elpais.com/diario/2012/01/15/domingo/1326603160_850215.html (Consulted on 16 January 2013)
“Moureaux Law”. Later on, the Law of 10 May 2007 entered into force, amending the law of 30 July 1981 to repress certain acts inspired by racism and xenophobia.
Haarscher, G (2007) La répression du négationnisme est-elle philosophiquement justifiable?, Communication au Colloque International Négationnisme (s)-Genocide&Denial, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.
Hare, I, Weinstein, J (2009) Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hennebel, L and Thomas Hochmann, TH (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hocmann, Th (2011) The Denier Intent. In: Genocide Denials and the Law, op. c., p. 283. It describes the psychology of the denialist.
Ibarra, E (2012) Grupos de odio y realidad social. In Grupos de odio y violencias sociales, editorial SL Rasche and Pereira-Menaut, Madrid.
Imbleau, M (2011) Denial of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity. In: Hennebel, L and Thomas Hochmann, TH (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law.
Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstadt [2000] EWHC QB 115 (April 11, 2000), par. 8.4.
Keane, D (2007) Attacking hate speech under Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, pp. 641–664.
L’Histoire (2006) Laissons les historiens faire leur métier ¡. In: Entretien avec Françoise Chandernagor, L’Histoire, no 306, février 2006. Available at http://histoirepresse.fr.
Lagrou, P (2006) Sanctionner pénalement les négationnistes?. In: Politique, nº 47, décembre 2006.
Le Monde, “Retrait de la plainte contre un historien de l’esclavage”, Le Monde, 4 février 2006.
Levinet, M (2004) La fermeté bienvenue de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme face au négationnisme. OBs.S/ La decisión du 24 juin 2003, Garaudy v. France, Revue trimestrielle des Droits de l´homme, pp. 653–662. Available at: http://www.rtdh.eu/pdf/2004653.pdf.
Lipstadt, D (1994) Denying the Holocaust – The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Penguin Books Limited, London. The book was first published in America in 1993, by Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster. It was republished in the United Kingdom in 1994 by Plume, a Penguin division.
Mackinnon, C (2004) International Decisions. Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, & Ngeze. American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, January, pp. 325–330.
Martín Sánchez, I (2012) El discurso del odio en el ámbito del Consejo de Europa, Revista General de Derecho Canónico y Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, 28, pp. 1–33.
Mcgonagle T (2007), Normes juridiques internationales et européennes relatives à la lutte contre les expressions racistes, en Commission européenne contre le racisme et l’intolérance. Lutter contre le racisme tout en respectant la liberté d’expression, Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg.
Oetheimer, M (2007) La cour europeénne des droits de l’homme face au discours de haine, Revue trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme, nº 69.
Pavón Pérez, J.A (2003) La labor del Consejo de Europa en la lucha contra la cibercriminalidad: El Protocolo adicional al Convenio nº 185 sobre cibercriminalidad relativo a la incriminación de actos de naturaleza racista y xenófobos cometidos a través de los sistemas informáticos, Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho, ISSN 0213-988-X, vol. XXI, 187–204.
Pech L (2011a) The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe. In: Hennebel L, Hochmann. Th (eds), Genocide Denials and the Law, pp. 183–226.
Pech, L (2011b) Ruling Denial Prohibition. In: Hennebel L, Hochmann. Th (eds), Genocides Denial and the Law.
Racine, J.B (2006) Le génocide des Arméniens. Origine et permanence du crime contre l’humanité, Dalloz, Paris.
Roth. R (2004) Le juge et l’histoire. In: Boisson de Chazournes, J, Quéguiner, S. Villalpando, S (eds.), Crime de l’Histoire et réparations: les réponses du droit et de la justice, Bruylant, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.
Schabas, W.A (2001) Was Genocide Committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina? First Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia, Fordham International, L.J., Vol 25, p. 46. Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol25/iss1/2.
Steinberg M (2006) Notre responsabilité, Politique, nº 47, décembre.
Ternon, Y (2007) La négation du génocide: une approche comparative. In: Lefevbre, B, Ferhadjian, S (dirs) Comprende les génocides du XX siècle, Éditions Bréal, Rosny-sous-bois, pp. 154 and foll. Ternon, Y (1999) Négationnismes: règles générales et cas particulièrs. In: Boustany K, Dormory, D (eds) Génocides, Éditions Bruylant et Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, pp. 143 and following.
Teruel Lozano, G (2015) La lucha del derecho contra el negacionismo: una peligrosa frontera. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Madrid, 615 pp.
Wachsmann, P (2001) Liberté d’expression et négationnisme, Revue trimestrielle du Droits de l’homme, numéro spécial Le droit face à la montée du racisme et de la xénophobie.
Legislation and Recommendations of the UE and Council of Europe
Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, of 23 November 2001.
ECRI, Country by Country Reports available on the website of ECRI, https://www.ecri.org.
ECRI, Explanatory Memorandum to General Policy Recommendation Nº 15 on combating Hate Speech, number 16.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation Nº 15 on combating Hate Speech, preamble.
ECRI, General Policy Recommendation nº 9, the fight against anti-Semitism. Adopted on 25 June 2004.
ECRI, Recommandation de politique générale nº 7 de l’ECRI sur la législation nationales pour lutter contre le racisme et la discrimination raciales, adoptée le 13 décembre 2002, Strasbourg, Secrétariat de l’ECRI, Direction générale des droits de l’homme_DG II, Conseil de l’Europe, 17 February 2003, paragraph 41 on paragraph 18 of the Recommendation.
ECRI, web site http://coe.int.ecri
Framework decision 2008/913/JHA, of 20 November 2008, on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia via criminal law (DOUE L 328, 6 December 2008).
Framework Decision, on combating racism and xenophobia, approved by the Council of the European Union at meeting on 20 April 2007.
Resolution adopted by consensus on 26 January 2007 at the General Assembly of the United Nations, condemning the denial of the Jewish Genocide. Adopted and proposed for signature and ratification, or accession, by the General Assembly resolution 260 A (III), 9 December 1948. Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII.
Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
ECHR, Roger Garaudy v. France, no. 6531/01, Section four, decision on admissibility, 24th June 2003.
ECHR (Grand Chamber), Perinçek v. Switzerland, Application no. 27510/08, 15th October 2015.
ECHR, Varela Geiss v. Spain, ECHR, Section three, Action no. 61005/009, 5 March 2013.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Partie Communiste de l’Allemagne c. Allemagne, of 20 July 1957.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Glasenapp c. Germany, of 11 May 1984, paragraph 110.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Kühnen v. The Federal Republic of Germany, of 12 May 1988.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Walendy v. Germany, of 11 January 1995.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Remer v. Germany, of 6 September 1995.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Honsik v. Austria, of 18 October 1995.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision National-democratic Party of Germany (N.P.D.) Beziksverband Múnchen-Oberbayern v. Germany, of 29 November 1995.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Rebhandl v. Austria, of 16 January 1996.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Marais v. France, of 24 June 1996.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision D.I. v Germany, of 26 June 1996.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, Décision Nachtmann v. Germany, of 9 September 1998.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, rêquete nº 1747/62, décision X. v. Austria, of 13 December 1963.
Commission européenne des Droits de l’homme, rêquete nº 92351/81, décision X. v. República federal de Alemania, of 16 July 1982.
ECHR,décision Felderer vs. Sweden, of 1 July 1985.
ECHR, Lawless c. Ireland, ECHR, nº 3, of 1 July 1961, paragraph 7.
ECHR, Handyside v. United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, paragraph 49.
Jersild v. Denmark, ECHR of 23 September 1994.
ECHR, Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 23th September 1998.
ECHR, Décision Wittzsch v. Germany, 20 April 1999.
Judgements of another International Tribunals
C.I.J., affaire de l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzegovine c. Serbie-et-Monténégro), arrêt du 26 févrie 2007, http://www.icj-cij.org.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, & Ngeze. Case no. ICTR 99-52-T. Judgment and Sentence. in http://www.ictr.org. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, December 3, 2003.
Mixed tribunal, created by agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanon. Decision 1757, adopted by the United Nations Security Council, on 30 May 2007.
Mixed tribunal, whose creation has been entrusted to the Secretary General of the United Nations Security Council, by decision 1315 of 14 August 2000.
TPIY, Le Procureur c/ R.Krstic, Chambre de première instance, jugement du 2 août 2001 et Chambre d’appel, arrêt du 19 avril 2004,
TPIY, Le Procureur c/J.-P. Akayesu, Chambre I, jugement du 2 septembre 1998, http://www.un.org/icty/index-f.html
Jurisprudence of National Courts and National Legislation
Belgium Legislation. The law of 23 March 1995.
Dissident vote by Judge Ramon Rodríguez Arribas to Judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court, 5152-2000, no. 4, BOE (Official State Gazette), no. 295, Supplement, Monday 10 December 2007, p. x56).
Gayssot Act, Act no. 90-6615, introduced in France on 13 July 1900, section 24a in the Law of Freedom of press of 1881.
Spanish Constitutional Court (STC) 235/2007. Question of unconstitutionality 5152-2000. Proposed by Section Three of the Provincial Court of Barcelona with respect to article 607.2 of the Criminal Code.
Spanish Supreme Court, Criminal Chamber two, Judgment no. 259/2011, of 12 April 2011. Kalki bookshop.
T.G. I, Paris, 21 June 1995. CDCA et Liera c. Bernard Lewis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Elósegui, M. (2017). Denial or Justification of Genocide as a Criminal Offence in European Law. In: Elósegui, M., Hermida, C. (eds) Racial Justice, Policies and Courts' Legal Reasoning in Europe. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 60. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53580-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53580-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53579-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53580-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)