By Anagnostakis Law Team
When a former interior minister walks into a Swiss courtroom and leaves with a 20-year sentence for crimes committed thousands of miles away, something fundamental has shifted in international law
November 2025 — The principle is deceptively simple: certain crimes are so grave that they concern all of humanity, and any nation can prosecute them regardless of where they occurred. But in practice, universal jurisdiction has transformed from a theoretical concept into one of the most powerful tools in the global fight against impunity.
The numbers from 2024 tell a striking story. Thirty-six new universal jurisdiction cases were opened or made public, and 27 suspects were convicted—nearly double the convictions from 2023, according to the latest Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review published by TRIAL International and partner organizations.
When Geography No Longer Protects
The conviction that captured international attention came from Switzerland in May 2024. Ousman Sonko, former interior minister of The Gambia, was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 20 years in prison, making him the highest-ranking state official tried under universal jurisdiction before a European court to date.
This wasn’t just another prosecution—it was a statement. The Federal Criminal Court found Sonko guilty of multiple crimes committed between 2000 and 2016 under the rule of Gambian ex-President Yahya Jammeh. High office provides no immunity when it comes to the gravest international crimes.
The Immunity Battle: A Complex Evolution
France has been testing the boundaries of immunity protections in particularly significant ways. In 2024, French courts upheld an arrest warrant against then-Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for alleged complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity related to 2013 chemical attacks. The case sparked intense legal debate about whether sitting heads of state could be subject to arrest warrants for international crimes.
The answer proved complicated. In July 2025, France’s highest court, the Cour de Cassation, ruled that sitting heads of state retain immunity even for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, annulling the original warrant. Yet the court added a crucial caveat: since Assad was no longer president after being overthrown in December 2024, “new arrest warrants can have been, or can be, issued against him”.
This legal evolution illustrates both the progress and persistent challenges in universal jurisdiction. While complete immunity for sitting heads of state remains intact under current international law, the moment leaders leave office, the shield falls. France entered convictions in absentia against other former Syrian regime officials, confirming that functional immunities do not apply in international crimes cases.
What This Means for Those at Risk
If you’re a government official, military commander, or corporate executive whose activities touch conflict zones, the legal landscape has fundamentally changed. Universal jurisdiction means:
Geographic boundaries matter less than ever. A brief stopover in a European airport, a business trip to Geneva, or a vacation in Paris could expose you to arrest if investigations are pending.
Time provides no protection. The Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review compiled developments in 95 extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction cases prosecuted in 16 countries, many involving crimes committed decades ago. There are no statutes of limitation for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, or enforced disappearances.
High office offers temporary protection at best. Recent cases establish that while sitting heads of state retain immunity, functional immunity—protection for government officials acting in their official capacity—provides no shield from prosecution for international crimes. And the moment you leave office, even presidential immunity disappears.
The Uneven Application Problem
Yet universal jurisdiction faces a credibility crisis. The failure to open investigations based on universal jurisdiction into alleged international crimes committed in Gaza has been perceived as a major threat to the legitimacy of international criminal justice.
Similarly, investigative efforts have yet to yield tangible results in cases of crimes during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and calls for accountability do not always translate into action, as with documented crimes of the Belarusian regime.
This selectivity raises uncomfortable questions: Is justice truly universal, or does it depend on political considerations? When European courts actively pursue certain cases but hesitate on others, critics argue the system reflects geopolitical preferences rather than consistent legal principles.
What Defense Counsel Must Know
For criminal defense lawyers, universal jurisdiction cases present unique challenges that demand specialized expertise:
Multi-jurisdictional complexity: These prosecutions involve evidence gathered across multiple countries under different legal standards, witnesses scattered globally, and proceedings conducted far from where alleged events occurred.
Evidentiary challenges: How reliable is evidence from conflict zones collected years after the fact? What standards apply when documentary evidence crosses multiple legal systems? These questions require sophisticated legal analysis.
Evolving immunity jurisprudence: The recent French cases demonstrate that immunity law continues to develop. Defense strategies must account for shifting interpretations across jurisdictions and appeal levels.
Fair trial protections: When proceedings happen thousands of kilometers from witnesses and support networks, ensuring effective defense becomes exponentially more complex. The European Court of Human Rights increasingly monitors these cases to ensure due process standards are maintained.
Strategic considerations: Understanding complementarity with the International Criminal Court, assessing whether domestic prosecutions might preclude international action, and navigating extradition treaties all require deep familiarity with international legal frameworks.
The Expanding Reach
The trend toward greater use of universal jurisdiction continues to accelerate. Portugal joined the group of jurisdictions actively prosecuting international crimes committed abroad in 2024, while legal reforms in Germany and Denmark strengthened mechanisms for investigating and prosecuting international crimes.
The Ljubljana-The Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and other International Crimes was signed by 32 states in February 2024, with 40 states parties as of February 2025. This treaty provides a comprehensive framework for mutual legal assistance and extradition for international crimes, making cross-border cooperation significantly more efficient.
Practical Steps for Potential Exposure
Anyone with potential exposure to universal jurisdiction proceedings should:
- Assess risk comprehensively: Engage legal counsel with international criminal law expertise to evaluate potential exposure across multiple jurisdictions. The risk landscape changes as you move between countries and as your official status changes.
- Understand the immunity framework: Sitting heads of state retain immunity, but other officials do not. And all immunity ends when you leave office. The timing of investigations and your current status matter enormously.
- Monitor developments: Universal jurisdiction cases can remain dormant for years before suddenly becoming active when a suspect enters the wrong jurisdiction or when political circumstances change.
- Prepare strategically: If exposure exists, early engagement with specialized counsel allows for coordinated strategy across potential jurisdictions and careful management of international travel.
The Path Forward
The response to crimes in Syria demonstrates the importance of structural investigations and collaboration between civil society organizations and prosecuting authorities, while the response to Ukraine demonstrates the potential of coordinated international criminal justice.
The question is whether this coordination can be applied consistently across all situations involving mass atrocities, or whether universal jurisdiction will continue to face criticism for selective application.
Why This Matters to You
Whether you’re a potential defendant, a corporation operating in conflict zones, or simply interested in how international law is evolving, universal jurisdiction represents a fundamental shift in accountability. The era when borders and high office provided absolute protection has ended—or at least, protection has become temporary and conditional.
For victims long denied justice, this evolution offers hope. For those potentially accused, it demands sophisticated legal representation capable of navigating complex cross-border proceedings and rapidly evolving immunity jurisprudence. For the international community, it poses fundamental questions about consistency, fairness, and the true meaning of universal justice.
The Sonko conviction and the Assad warrant saga both demonstrate the same reality: accountability may be delayed, and the legal path may be tortuous, but it’s no longer impossible. Every government official, military commander, and decision-maker operating in conflict zones now faces a calculation that previous generations did not—the risk that justice will eventually catch up, regardless of where they flee.
Sources:
- TRIAL International, Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2025 (April 8, 2025)
- TRIAL International, “Gambian former Minister of Interior Ousman Sonko sentenced to 20 years in prison for crimes against humanity in historic Swiss trial” (May 15, 2024)
- Government of the Netherlands, “Convention signed to combat international crime more effectively” (February 14, 2024)
- Slovenia Ministry of Foreign Affairs, MLA Initiative documents (2025)
- France24, “French court upholds arrest warrant for Syria’s Assad” (June 26, 2024)
- Al Jazeera, “France’s top court annuls arrest warrant against Syria’s al-Assad” (July 25, 2025)
- American Bar Association, International Criminal Law Year in Review 2024
- European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review 2025
About Anagnostakis Law Office
With 25 years of experience in criminal defense and international human rights law, Alexis Anagnostakis represents clients before Greek courts, the European Court of Human Rights, and in complex cross-border proceedings. As Human Rights Officer for the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA), he brings specialized expertise in universal jurisdiction cases, extradition defense, and high-stakes international criminal matters.
Our practice has included representation before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights and deep engagement with European-level legal policy affecting attorney-client privilege and digital rights in criminal proceedings.
If you face potential universal jurisdiction proceedings, require representation in international criminal matters, need strategic advice on cross-border legal risks, or are dealing with extradition requests, contact us for a confidential consultation
This article provides general information and analysis of legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice. Each case requires individualized legal analysis based on specific circumstances, current legal status, and jurisdiction-specific considerations.
