 |
|
Sentenced to 17 years: |
The prosecutor's office also wanted a 15 year term, because it was believed that that was the maximum term for conspiracy to commit war crimes and genocide. However, according to the Appeal Court, a higher sentence can be imposed because Van Anraat supplied Iraq with chemical materials many times 'out of pure greed'.
At the end of the proceedings, a spokesman for the public prosecutor's office couldn't immediately explain how it was possible to have a difference in the sentencing:
"We believe the [Appeal] Court has made a different interpretation of this section of the law."
The Appeal Court also stated that Van Anraat knew that the chemicals which he supplied would be used for making mustard gas and that Saddam Hussein would use those weapons to launch attacks against the Kurds in Iraq. And so the Court was satisfied that there had been enough evidence to convict Van Anraat of conspiracy to commit war crimes. The Dutch businessman even carried on with the deliveries when other suppliers were stopped because of growing international pressure.
Genocide
In contrast to the original court judgement, the Court of Appeal concluded that the events in Northern Iraq weren't genocide. Even so, the Court stated that "at the very least, there were powerful indications that the Iraqi leaders had genocidal intent". And so because of that, Van Anraat could also not be found guilty of genocide. To secure a conviction on that point, it had to be proved that Van Anraat knew of Saddam's plans to wipe out a large part of the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq.
The sentencing by the Appeal Court is, according to the spokesman for the public prosecutor's office, an historic moment because for the first time ever a Dutch person has been convicted of supplying the materials to make poison gas. "These attacks with poison gas took an enormous number of lives and caused immense grief." Some survivors of the gas attacks were present during the court proceedings.
Those victims are demanding compensation for the loss of their health, but the Appeal Court was unwilling to deal with the claim because it would prove too complicated during criminal proceedings. For that reason a separate civil case will be brought.
Setting an example
According to the spokesman for the public prosecutor's office, the Netherlands has set an example with this sentencing. "We hope that this also acts as a deterrent to people who trade in materials for poison gasses." He would also like other countries to follow the example of the Netherlands and pursue similar suspects.
In the meantime, the fear of persecution for companies or business concerns involved in profiting from conflicts is already there. During the case, a number of foreign lawyers were present to see what would be the consequences of the judgement for companies who supply materials or people to warring parties.
*RNW Translation (cc)