The risk of speaking out: rethinking victim and witness protection in universal jurisdiction proceedings
Universal jurisdiction – the ability for national courts under certain circumstances to prosecute international crimes committed abroad – is frequently praised as offering a “last resort” for justice when judicial mechanisms in victims’ own countries, or regional and international courts, fail to act. While the spotlight is often on the prosecution of authors of international crimes, much less attention is given to the risks associated with pursuing these cases for victims and witnesses – particularly those who still live in the country where the crimes took place. In these instances, victims, witnesses and their advocates may find themselves subjected to threats, reprisals and other security risks but without recourse to authorities that may be able to provide protection.
Threats and when they occur
Since 2021, Civitas Maxima and its Liberian partner organisation, the Global Justice Research Project, have recorded more than 50 concrete threats or acts of intimidation against staff, victims, witnesses, and their families. These threats occurred in the context of only six cases related to Liberia and have included death threats, face-to-face intimidation, and harassment by telephone, or social media. These acts of intimidation, sometimes accompanied by verbal or physical assaults, have intensified over the past four years.
In the last months alone, GJRP’s Director received several threats to his home. An unidentified man told his daughter, “since he [your father] put our brother in jail, we will make sure to attack him, and he won’t be able to put anyone else in jail.” Another witness received threatening visits to his workplace, where he found a note indicating that those who wish to intimidate him know where he lives and “will kill him and his family.”
These acts of intimidation often spike after convictions. As was the case after the conviction of Alieu Kosiah in Switzerland in 2023, and the sentencing of Sekou Kamara in the US earlier this year in 2025. Threats occurring after convictions further complicate matters, as often the authorities in prosecuting countries have “closed” the case and moved on. They do not pay the necessary attention to what happens to victims and witnesses once the procedure is formally over, and often cannot even be contacted or engaged to discuss the potential need for protection measures at that stage.
The question of what will happen when those convicted are released and deported back to Liberia poses hence another hurdle. Alieu Kosiah for example will be expelled from Swiss territory for a period of 10 years after he serves his sentence. Liberian authorities have not provided meaningful protection for witnesses, victims, or human rights defenders, and foreign authorities have no jurisdiction or willingness to protect people once they return home.
It is important to note that this is not the only time that victims and witnesses assume risk. This happens as soon as they decide to share their story with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and authorities. Given that legal cases can take anywhere between 2 and 10 years to come to fruition, a witness or victim’s choice to participate in a legal proceeding can be life defining.
The role of National Authorities in dealing with threats
The security risks that victims and witnesses face are serious, and in any “ordinary” criminal case they would warrant the intervention of the national authorities. However, the complex cross-border nature of universal jurisdiction cases is such that it is rarely possible to grant protective measures to victims and witnesses who reside in the country of commission, and they thus find themselves outside the scope of protection of the authorities driving and prosecuting the case.
The issue was explored from a practical perspective in a 2020 report Breaking Down Barriers which reviewed the legal systems of five EU Member States. The report provided a detailed overview of the potential measures available to minimise risk of retaliation against victims and witnesses in core international crimes cases including: the ability to testify anonymously, exclusion of the public from hearings, orders preventing the accused from contacting witnesses and more robust witness protection programmes. However, the report highlighted that “such measures are generally only available to witnesses living within the EU and thus far have been used infrequently in international crimes cases”.
Even when measures are practically available, they are rarely used. This could be partly because prosecutors often emphasise the value of presenting direct witness testimony before a jury, particularly since in these types of cases, the preponderance of evidence is witness testimony. The often-exclusive reliance on witness testimonies in universal jurisdiction cases raises the question of the equality of arms principle and the right for the defence to know who is accusing them. Granting extensive protective measures to witnesses risks to compromise the right of the defence to a fair trial.
In most instances however, this is not the key consideration, rather many protection measures may simply not apply to victims who do not have the formal status of “witnesses.” For example, Civil Parties or those who become directly part of a case will be known by their full name at least to the defendant and can therefore not benefit from anonymity. However, it is not necessarily confrontation with the accused that puts victims at risk. Public hearings and un-redacted public judgements may also put witnesses at risk from members of the wider public.
Lastly, and perhaps the most important reason for the lack of comprehensive victim and witness protection, is the fact that jurisdictions are in many cases entirely limited in their ability to provide protection to witnesses abroad. From a purely practical perspective, their police forces have no ability to act on soil miles away.
The Role of CSOs
So, what does this mean for victims and witnesses, and who deals with managing the subsequent risks? Provided the limited ability of the prosecuting authorities in this regard, it is therefore in the hands of local CSOs to step in and assist victims and witnesses manage their security challenges.
The security landscape is something that is always explained to victims and witnesses before their engagement with parties working on accountability, forming a central pillar of informed consent. Yet, although they know that they might be confronted with the perpetrator or others with an interest in the case, many insist on participating, nonetheless. In some cases, even if someone wishes to participate, Civitas Maxima and GJRP, based on their own risk assessment, may decline to engage with that person if the risk of their participation is deemed to be too high for them. Practically speaking, it is up to CSOs to fill the gap, conducting not only risk assessments beforehand, but also providing witnesses and victims with assistance when they face retaliation without the support or resources of the authorities progressing criminal cases.
Rethinking protection needs in universal jurisdiction cases
As universal jurisdiction continues to be used more widely, prosecuting authorities need to better develop frameworks to support victims and witnesses in these types of cases. The ordinary models, in addition to not always being applicable, are ill-fitted to addressing the unique security needs of victims of international crimes cases prosecuted under the model of universal jurisdiction. The current status quo, in which the role of witness and victim security falls largely to CSO or victims and witnesses themselves is not a sustainable model. As highlighted by the Breaking Barriers report, victims of core international crimes should benefit from in-depth assessments by the authorities of their individual protection needs, and how these can be met, from the very beginning of a case, throughout the procedure and even beyond the final conviction. Throughout the lifecycle of a case, national investigators and prosecutors should task themselves with ensuring that any risk their work entails for those at the centre of such case can be mitigated. In situations where victims still live in the communities in which the crimes were perpetrated, this is even more crucial.
Image: Civil party at the Kunti Kamara appeal proceedings, Paris, France, 2024. Civitas Maxima/JP Kalonji.
