HRF Takes Gaza War Crimes Case to Spain’s Supreme Court

On 9 September 2025, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) filed a criminal complaint in Spain against Israeli soldier Tameer (Tamer) Mulla, a former sergeant in the 101st Paratrooper Battalion, for his direct participation in acts amounting to genocide and war crimes during Israel’s assault on Gaza.

Initial Filing and Appeal

On 22 September 2025, the Spanish Central Investigative Court of the Audiencia Nacional dismissed the complaint. HRF responded by filing an appeal on 1 October 2025, arguing that the decision violated the right to effective judicial protection and that Spanish authorities were under a legal obligation to investigate or prosecute Mulla—particularly given the absence of any proceedings against him before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal on 3 February 2026, and the case was subsequently referred to the Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia Nacional. The appeal raised key legal questions concerning universal jurisdiction, complementarity, and Spain’s obligations under international law to prevent impunity for the most serious crimes.

Decision of the Audiencia Nacional

On 2 March 2026, the Criminal Chamber dismissed HRF’s appeal and confirmed the rejection of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that Spanish courts could not exercise universal jurisdiction because the requirement under Article 23(4)(a) of the Organic Law of the Judiciary had not been met—specifically, that no extradition request had been made and refused. The court further noted that HRF remained free to pursue the case before the ICC.

HRF to Challenge Before the Supreme Court

This is the reality Spain is being asked to confront: the destruction of genocide

HRF has decided to challenge this ruling before the Spanish Supreme Court.

In its appeal, HRF will argue that the Audiencia Nacional misinterpreted Article 23.4 by treating the absence of an extradition request as a barrier to jurisdiction. Under the principle of aut dedere aut judicare (“extradite or prosecute”), Spain is required to investigate individuals suspected of international crimes who are present on its territory and to proceed with prosecution unless an extradition request is submitted and accepted. Jurisdiction should therefore be presumed unless and until extradition is formally requested and granted—not dismissed in its absence.

Misapplication of Complementarity

HRF will also argue that the court misapplied the ICC’s principle of complementarity. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC intervenes only where national authorities fail to act and applies a strict “same person, same conduct” test, requiring that the specific individual be under investigation. In this case, the court relied on the existence of ICC proceedings concerning Gaza without verifying whether Tameer Mulla himself was subject to those proceedings.

This interpretation risks creating a serious accountability gap, allowing lower-ranking individuals directly involved in crimes to evade justice simply because international proceedings focus on senior officials.

A Decisive Front in the Global Fight Against Impunity

This case forms part of the Hind Rajab Foundation’s global campaign to activate universal jurisdiction and ensure that perpetrators of the Gaza genocide are held accountable wherever they travel. States cannot selectively invoke international law; they are under a binding obligation to investigate and prosecute war criminals present on their territory.

Recent developments demonstrate that this strategy is producing tangible results. In Brazil, prosecutors have acknowledged jurisdiction and issued multiple probe orders following HRF complaints. In Peru, an investigation has been formally opened. In Belgium, authorities have already proceeded with arrests of Israeli suspects.

These steps mark significant advances in the dismantling of impunity.

Against this backdrop, the proceedings in Spain take on particular importance. The outcome of this case will determine whether Spain upholds its legal obligations or contributes to a framework in which perpetrators of the gravest crimes can evade justice through restrictive interpretations of the law.

For HRF, the principle remains clear: universal jurisdiction must be applied, not avoided.