Humanitarian Law Violations In Finland
1. War-Responsibility Trials (1945–1946)
Facts:
After World War II, Finland faced pressure from the Allied powers to hold its political leadership accountable for its role in the Continuation War against the Soviet Union. Special legislation was enacted—the Act on Punishment of Those Responsible for the War (1945)—which retroactively criminalized decisions that led to Finland’s participation in the war.
Key Individuals Tried:
President Risto Ryti
Prime Ministers, ministers, and military leaders
Charges:
Making decisions that contributed to starting or prolonging the war
Violating international norms through wartime actions
Outcome:
Ryti sentenced to 10 years imprisonment; others received sentences ranging from 6 months to 8 years.
Several appeals were denied, though sentences were later reduced due to political considerations.
Importance:
First major use of domestic law to prosecute wartime leaders.
Controversial because it applied retroactive law, raising debates about legality and “victor’s justice.”
Set a precedent in Finland for accountability for violations of international norms, albeit retroactively.
2. François Bazaramba Case (Rwandan Genocide, Finland, 2009–2012)
Facts:
François Bazaramba, a Rwandan national living in Finland, was accused of participating in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, including killings, assault, and incitement to violence.
Legal Basis:
Finland prosecuted him under its universal jurisdiction laws for genocide and crimes against humanity.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Appeals were denied, and the Supreme Court upheld the verdict.
Importance:
First major application of Finland’s universal jurisdiction for genocide.
Demonstrated Finland’s willingness to prosecute serious international crimes even when committed abroad.
3. Gibril Massaquoi Case (Liberia, Sierra Leone, Universal Jurisdiction)
Facts:
Gibril Massaquoi, a former rebel commander in Liberia and Sierra Leone, was accused of participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity during the civil wars, including killings, sexual violence, and pillaging.
Trial in Finland:
Massaquoi was tried under Finland’s Criminal Code, Chapter 11, which allows prosecution of international crimes committed abroad.
Outcome:
Acquitted due to insufficient evidence linking him directly to specific acts.
Case highlighted challenges in evidence collection and witness testimony in foreign jurisdictions.
Importance:
Demonstrated practical challenges of universal jurisdiction.
Reinforced the principle that serious crimes cannot be prosecuted without credible evidence, even under Finnish law.
4. Contemporary War Crimes – Yan Petrovsky / Rusich Unit (Ukraine, 2014)
Facts:
A man alleged to be Yan Petrovsky, associated with the Rusich paramilitary unit, was accused of committing war crimes during the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, including unlawful killings and mistreatment of prisoners.
Jurisdiction:
Finland invoked universal jurisdiction because extradition to Ukraine was considered unsafe due to risk of mistreatment.
Charges:
War crimes under Finnish Criminal Code, Chapter 11: intentional killing of combatants, mistreatment of prisoners, and attacking civilian property.
Outcome:
Trial in Finnish courts is ongoing.
Illustrates Finland’s modern application of universal jurisdiction for foreign conflicts.
Importance:
Demonstrates Finland’s commitment to prosecuting serious violations of humanitarian law.
Highlights procedural, evidentiary, and diplomatic challenges in transnational cases.
5. Aarne Kauhanen Alleged War Crimes (Historical, Finland, WWII)
Facts:
Aarne Kauhanen, a Finnish officer during WWII, was accused of torturing and executing prisoners of war during interrogations.
Legal Status:
He was never prosecuted in Finland.
Allegations surfaced in post-war historical research and public debate.
Significance:
Illustrates limits of accountability for historical humanitarian law violations.
Sparked debate on whether Finland adequately addressed violations committed by its own officials during wartime.
6. Discussion of Finland’s Universal Jurisdiction Law (2008 Reform)
While not a single case, Finland’s Criminal Code reform in 2008 codified crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide as prosecutable under Finnish law, even if committed abroad. Key applications:
François Bazaramba Case
Gibril Massaquoi Case
Rusich Unit Case
Significance:
Strengthened Finland’s capacity to uphold humanitarian law standards.
Demonstrated alignment with international law obligations, including Geneva Conventions.
7. Contemporary Observations and Challenges
Limited Number of Cases: Despite legal provisions, only a few cases have proceeded to trial due to evidentiary and jurisdictional challenges.
Historical vs. Modern Enforcement: Finland actively prosecuted historical war-responsibility trials and modern international crimes differently, reflecting evolving legal norms.
Universal Jurisdiction Constraints: Practical constraints—evidence collection, witness protection, and cross-border cooperation—affect prosecution outcomes.
Legacy: Finland is considered a model of principled application of universal jurisdiction, balancing fair trial rights with accountability.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Finland has prosecuted both historical and modern humanitarian law violations.
Historical trials (1945–46) were politically charged but set a precedent.
Modern cases (Bazaramba, Massaquoi, Rusich Unit) show active use of universal jurisdiction.
Acquittals and procedural challenges highlight the difficulty of prosecuting crimes committed abroad.
Finland’s legal reforms ensure war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are prosecutable under domestic law, upholding humanitarian law standards.
RELATED Blog
comments