IJCentral: International Justice Central

President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan arrived in Kenya on Friday to participate in a ceremony inaugurating the country’s newly minted constitution, flouting international demands for his arrest on genocide charges.

Mr. Bashir faces two arrest warrants: one issued in July by the International Criminal Court in The Hague on three counts of genocide and one from March 2009 for war crimes and crime against humanity. In theory the warrants could be enforced by any of the court’s member countries, which include Kenya.

The charges relate to the conflict in the western Darfur region of Sudan, where an estimated 300,000 people have died and more than two million have been uprooted by almost a decade of fighting between the government and rebels. Mr. Bashir denies the charges.

News reports said Mr. Bashir was escorted into Uhuru Park in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, by the minister of tourism, Najib Balala, to attend the ceremony marking the adoption of the new constitution, supposed to hasten democratic reform in Kenya, a nation generally depicted as pro-Western.

The role of the international court is particularly sensitive in Kenya because last April its judges authorized formal criminal investigations of the political leaders who organized the violence that convulsed the country after its disputed election in 2007.

Kenya’s political leaders had earlier refused to set up a special tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the killings, saying Kenya’s existing courts could handle the cases.

Under the Rome Statute establishing the court in 2002, which Kenya has ratified, member states are supposed to cooperate with the court, which has no means of enforcing its warrants. Nonetheless, Mr. Bashir traveled last month to Chad — also a member state of the international court — without being arrested.

The African Union, the continent’s main representative group, has criticized the warrant and urged that it be suspended.

The readiness of President Mwai Kibaki to receive Mr. Bashir drew strong criticism from Human Rights Watch, a rights advocacy group based in New York.

“Kenya will forever tarnish the celebration of its long-awaited constitution if it welcomes an international fugitive to the festivities,” said Elise Keppler, senior counsel in the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch in a statement on Thursday. “Even worse, hosting al-Bashir would throw into question Kenya’s commitment to cooperate with the I.C.C. in its Kenyan investigation.”

“Whether Kenya allows a suspected war criminal into Kenya is a test of the government’s commitment to a new chapter in ensuring justice for atrocities,” Ms. Keppler said. “The Kenyan government should stand with victims, not those accused of horrible crimes, by barring al-Bashir from Kenya or arresting him.”

The international warrants for his arrest have largely restricted Mr. Bashir’s travels to friendly countries in Africa and the Middle East that have resisted Western pressure to do the court’s bidding.

The celebration of Kenya’s new constitution, written to alleviate longstanding problems hindering good government for years, came after voters approved the document with overwhelming enthusiasm in a referendum earlier this month. It has been billed a potential turning point Kenya’s postcolonial history, addressing issues that have haunted the country since independence from Britain in 1963.

The constitution was drawn up after disputed elections in 2007 led to ethnically driven clashes that killed more than 1,000 people.

source: New York Times

KHARTOUM — Darfur’s rebel Justice and Equality Movement said Tuesday it was locked in fresh fighting with Sudan’s army, a day after the International Criminal Court charged President Omar al-Beshir with genocide.

“Early this morning… 60 four-wheel drive vehicles of Sudan’s army and militia obstructed JEM patrols near Kuma, North Darfur, JEM spokesman Ali Alwafi told AFP.

“The genocidal forces lost the battle and fled to Kuma. Our forces pursued them into the town and destroyed their military camp and captured 34 well-equipped vehicles,” he said.

The United Nations and African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, or UNAMID, said it was aware of reports that clashes had broken out between JEM and the Sudanese army.

“UNAMID has received as-yet unconfirmed reports of clashes between government forces and the Justice and Equality Movement in North Darfur. Verification missions are planned to confirm these reports,” it said.

The Sudanese army could not be reached to confirm or deny the reports.

On Monday, the army reported clashes involving JEM, one of the most militarised groups in Darfur, and its soldiers in the strategic Adula region between South Darfur, North Darfur and nearby North Kordofan province.

The fighting came as the International Criminal Court announced it has decided to add genocide to the charges against Beshir, who is already wanted since March 2009 for war crimes and crimes against humanity over his role in Darfur’s war.

Darfur, an arid desert region the size of France, has been gripped by a civil war since 2003 that has killed 300,000 people and displaced another 2.7 million, according to UN figures. Khartoum says 10,000 people have died.

source: AFP

Dhaka Mar 22 (bdnews24.com) - The cabinet on Monday ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which sets international standards for prosecution of individuals who commit crimes against humanity.

“The ratification will prove that Bangladesh is determined to follow international standards to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide” the prime minister’s press secretary Abul Kalam Azad said.

Bangladesh signed the Rome Statute on July 17, 1998, the first country to do so in South Asia.

The statute, entering into force on 1 July 2002, is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The ICC’s main purpose is to assist the international community in trying the most heinous international crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes again humanity. The official seat of the permanent tribunal is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.

But it remains a “court of last resort”, leaving the primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over alleged criminals to national legal systems. Under this system of ‘complementarity’, it will only act when national authorities are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute crimes.

Asked whether ratification of the statute by Bangladesh would help in the government’s upcoming prosecution of 1971 war crimes trials, law minister Shafique Ahmed earlier this week said ratification was necessary for prosecution of future instances of crimes against humanity.

The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed on or after the date it came into force. However, ratification of the statute calls on countries to adopt a number of actions, including bringing their own laws into line with its provisions.

The law minister last week confirmed that Bangladesh’s upcoming 1971 war crimes trials would be held under its recently amended International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973.

An expert panel of international lawyers, including a former war crimes prosecutor, submitted a legal opinion to the government last month, however, advising further amendments to ensure the 1973 Act meets international standards.

Among other recommendations, the lawyers advise that sections of the Rome Statute dealing with rights of suspects during investigations must be included in the Act.

As of October 2009, 110 states were party to the Rome Statute, and a further 38 states had signed but not ratified the treaty. The US, Sudan and Israel, once signatories, have ‘unsigned’ the statute.

source: Bangladesh News Online

March 17, 2010 (JUBA) – The Ugandan rebels of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) are planning to carry out attacks in Southern Sudan during the April elections, says the spokesman of the Southern Sudan army.

Maj. Gen. Kuol Deim Kuol said the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) has confirmed that LRA has planned for massive attacks in Western Equatoria state and Greater Bahr el Ghazal region to coincide with the elections in the region.

Speaking to the UN-sponsored Miraya FM radio based in Juba, Kuol accused the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) of supporting the LRA to destabilize Southern Sudan.

He said the SPLA forces are ready to repel such attacks and provide security to the people during the elections.

Kuol also echoed the recent statement by the Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni that LRA forces are based in Darfur region.

He added that LRA forces have already been spotted in areas of Western Bahr el Ghazal state in their preparation for the attacks.

Earlier Sudan Armed Forces denied the claim that the LRA forces are based in Darfur, describing it as “baseless.”

LRA’s leader, Joseph Kony, had been supported by SAF during the war time and his forces were established or roaming in the three states of Eastern, Central and Western Equatoria before the signing of the CPA that ended the North-South civil war in 2005.

In 2006, the Government of Southern Sudan and Uganda agreed on the initiative to talk peace with the rebels in an effort to end the more than twenty years of conflict which began in 1986.

After two years of successful Southern Sudan-mediated talks in Juba that resulted to relative peace in northern Uganda, nearly two million people displaced by the conflict in northern Uganda were able to leave IDP camps and returned to their villages.

However, after concluding the talks by signing several protocols between Uganda government and the rebels including the timetable for implementation of the agreement, Joseph Kony in the last minute refused to sign the compiled Final Peace Agreement document with President Museveni, citing ICC’s arrest warrant for his indictment as an obstacle.

Southern Sudan’s Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar, who was the Chief Mediator in the negotiations between the two parties had to shuttle between Juba and Sudan-DR Congo border looking for Joseph Kony in the wild jungles of thick forests in that region to find him for face-to-face talks in order to convince him to sign, but to no avail.

Kony has since then instead continued with the cross-border international rebellion which affects Southern Sudan, DR Congo, Central Africa Republic and the native country, Uganda.

source: Sudan Tribune

The claims of alleged war crimes committed, according to the Goldstone report, during fighting in Gaza between Israel and Hamas in late 2008 and early 2009 will not reach the International Criminal Court at the Hague, a former ICC official told Haaretz on Sunday.

Legal attorney Nick Kaufman, who had served as a senior prosecutor at the ICC and a senior district attorney for the Jerusalem prosecution, said Israeli officials were likely safe from war crimes suits as the U.S. would probably veto such a move.

Until a month ago Kaufman, an expert on international law and rules of warfare, served as a senior lawyer in the Jerusalem prosecutor’s office.

- Nick Kaufman, do you think you will represent an Israeli official, who has been charged with committing war crimes following the Goldstone report, at the international court?

Kaufman: “I don’t believe so. I think the Goldstone report will receive a poor man’s burial.”

- You sound decisive.

” I don’t understand how the United Nations Security Council has made a decision to transfer the case to the international criminal court at The Hague, because I think in any event, the United States will veto the decision.”

“The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said he was satisfied with the investigation Israel has conducted, but the Arab League and other unidentified countries have insisted that a new investigation be conducted in the next 5 months. I don’t see it going beyond this.”

“On the other hand, I don’t believe the senior prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, will yield to the Palestinians request and order an investigation against Israel: For him to accept the Palestinian request to recognize their court authority to try and judge the violations committed on their land, he would first have to recognize the Palestinian Authority as an independent country, and I cant see him making such an extreme decision. I just don’t see it happening.”

Where did you first meet Judge Richard Goldstone?

“Before he headed the inquiry committee, Goldstone was the recipient of a scholarship and he served for a few months at The Hague. When rumors spread about his appointment to the committee that will investigate the events in Gaza, I went to hear him speaking at the central library in Hague.”

“I gave him a letter from Noam Shalit, in which he wrote that Gilad’s captivity is against international law, and that t should be declared a war crime and a breach of the Geneva Convention. It also said that he should recommend that he be released when he is appointed head of the committee.”

And what did he say?

“He got back to me several hours afterwards, and told me that he was touched by Gilad’s story in a personal manner, and he understands the concern. Eventually, the report he wrote has a legal mistake regarding the conditions of Gilad’s captivity.”

Do you agree with the Israel’s criticism against him?

“I think the personal criticism against him did him injustice. He might be naive, but I think that Goldstone is an Israel supporter. I don’t think he estimated the extent of the personal hatred Israel expressed towards him.”

“I think that the politician’s slander of him during the committee and after it, damaged israel’s image in the international community, as Israel did not understand what a respected legal personality Goldstone is. A man who served as the supreme prosecutor of two international courthouses knows something about violation of rules of warfare. Saying that he is stupid and knows nothing projects on us.”

The argument is that he claimed sole mandate of a unilateral investigation.

“This is a basic mistake, which I know has frustrated Goldstone extremely. I met with him several months later, at a MacArthur foundation event where they were honoring him for his work in the international legal arena, and he came up to me and expressed deep frustration from the fact that Israel is not allowing him to enter Sderot to hear eyewitness testimonies, and also to enter Gaza from Israel.”

“He was frustrated as he was the one who requested from the Human Rights Council in Geneva to extend the investigation to cover both the Palestinian and the Israeli actions in the Gaza War, and for some reason, even after the publication of the report Israel still criticized the report as being unilateral.”

Did you hear him express any affinity to Israel or Judaism?

“I remember when Noam Shalit brought him Gilad’s childhood book “when the shark and the fish first met,” during their meeting last year, he didn’t know how to read the book and opened it on the wring side. I remember thinking to myself, how come a Jew who prays every year at Yom Kippur doesn’t know how to hold a book in Hebrew.”

- You worked directly under the senior prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, who also has the authority to order an investigation against Israel following the Gaza war. What can you tell us about him?

Ocampo’s position is not strong. He has been hit by strong criticism of his performance, as he has failed convict even one person in the international criminal court during his tenure. I estimate that his position is unstable, and he won’t want to interfere with such a controversial subject.

If you think the Goldstone report will be buried, there is no point in erecting a committee to investigate the war crime allegations during the Gaza offensive.

“Because I don’t see the affair reaching the International court, I also don’t see a real - legal, political and international - reason to establish a committee. But at the same time, I think that there are ethical merits in establishing a committee for internal reasons, in which we can look at ourselves in light of the criticism the world and the report has voiced against us. I don’t think we have a reason to fear the investigation.

source:  Haaretz

NAIROBI, Kenya — A public feud between Kenya’s prime minister and president, whose agreement two years ago to share power ended the country’s worst violence since independence, has many of their compatriots worried that the bloodshed could resume if efforts by the U.S. and African powers fail to cool tensions.

Relations between the two leaders — never strong to begin with — broke down this week over the attempted dismissals of two Cabinet ministers accused of corruption. In the streets of Kenya’s capital, dozens of protesters marched in front of Parliament on Wednesday, demanding an end to corruption and expressing worry about the friction between President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

“It’s definitely going to lead to violence because they are not working toward consensus,” Polycarp Gordon Odhiambo, 37, the chief executive of a development group that works in a Nairobi slum, said as he walked among other protesters who held up signs saying “Kibaki Stop Protecting Thieves” and “The Issue is Corruption, Not Politics.”

“From now on, anything can happen,” added Laban Kanyanya Nyongesa, 29, a taxi driver who watched the rally from the edge of a park.

U.S. officials are working behind the scenes to get the two leaders to talk face-to-face and bring down tensions that could rupture the coalition.

The two leaders spoke over the phone late Wednesday during an “extremely cordial” conversation, Salim Lone, an adviser to Odinga said Thursday. The two plan to meet on Sunday, he said.
Tensions escalated last Saturday when Kibaki suspended eight government workers — including two Odinga aides — suspected of corruption. The next day, Odinga suspended two Cabinet ministers after audits of their ministries of agriculture and education uncovered high-level corruption. But Kibaki annulled those suspensions and has since said they were never valid because Odinga had not consulted with him as required under Kenya’s power-sharing deal.

Moses Kuria, spokesman of Kibaki’s Party of National Unity, said that if Odinga or ministers loyal to him withdraw from the government, the president can simply reconstitute the Cabinet.

Legal scholars say such a move by Kibaki would be lawful. But it would risk sending angry Odinga supporters into the streets.

Fears of a return to violence are well founded, especially if the political stalemate goes on for many days, said Ben Sihanya, the dean of the University of Nairobi Law School. But, he said,
Kenyans are also aware that they are under more scrutiny today — by the International Criminal Court and others — after the December 2007-February 2008 bloodshed.

“You cannot just start killing people,” Sihanya said. “You cannot start burning things. People are being more careful than they were before.”

After the December 2007 vote, Kibaki was quickly sworn in as president despite doubts from observers about the vote’s fairness. Odinga supporters took to the streets and clashed with police. The violence took on an ethnic dimension as people were attacked with machetes and even bows and arrows based on their tribal identities. Whole neighborhoods were set ablaze.
Former U.N. chief Kofi Annan, a heavyweight negotiator acceptable to both sides, patched together the shaky coalition government to end the violence. Odinga has asked Annan to step in and mediate the current standoff. In a statement Thursday, Annan called on the two leaders to recommit to a collaborative spirit, to meet with each other and to fight corruption.
Top U.S. officials here are monitoring the dispute closely, are working to defuse the tension and also want the two leaders to meet.

Gus Selassie, a political analyst on Africa at IHS Global Insight, a London-based think tank, said that while Odinga may have exceeded his constitutional powers in trying to suspend the two ministers, Kibaki’s reversal of the decision underscores the disconnect between Kenya’s two leaders.

Selassie said that while Kibaki was first elected president in December 2002 on an anti-corruption platform, he is now reluctant to act against senior figures implicated in scandals.

A PricewaterhouseCoopers audit made public last week shows Kenya lost $26.1 million through corrupt deals that stemmed from a government program to provide subsidized maize for Kenya’s poor. Government auditors uncovered fraud in a program to offer free primary education — two scandals that led Odinga to try to dismiss the Cabinet ministers.

Average Kenyans still want their government to fight graft, but now they especially want their leaders to work together and prevent violence from erupting again.

“We expect this to be resolved,” said Sihanya. “Otherwise the alternative is quite dire for the country.”

source:  The Associated Press

Fouad Hikmat of the Crisis Group says the National Congress Party’s control of the electoral commission and lack of representation for Darfur could be problematic

Campaigning for Sudan’s first multi-party election in 24 years is underway after kicking off over the weekend.

Twelve candidates are running for president in the April 11 election, including longtime leader Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Darfur.
Fouad Hikmat, the International Crisis Group’s advisor on the African Union and Sudan, said while the April elections are important for Sudan’s democratic transformation, the outcome could be problematic for a number reasons.

“Very clearly Darfur is not being able to play a role in this election, and therefore I will see that the solution for Darfur after this election is going to be problematic,” he said.

Another problem, Hikmat said, is the fact that President Bashir’s National Congress (NCP) controls the national electoral commission.

“There is a lot of accusation that the environment is not free and fair given that the National Congress Party is controlling the National Electoral Commission and it will bring about a majority of a government that has been part of the conflict in Darfur. And therefore the election might not bring stability. On the contrary it might bring a sort of a continuation of violence and grievances after the election,” Hikmat said.

Hikmat said President Bashir would like to win the election to send a message to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“Specifically Bashir, he’s being accused by the ICC, and that’s why it is extremely important for him to win the elections to give a message that if I was a person that committed crimes against humanity, my people wouldn’t have chosen me,” Hikmat said.

However, Hikmat said President Bashir would be making a false assumption about his legitimacy following the election.

“If he regains his legitimacy based on those grounds, then he would have got an argument to some an extent, although that argument whatever it is, it is not going to wave away a judicial process, and that is the process of the International Criminal Court,” he said.

Hikmat said Bashir could also use the results of the election to legitimize himself over his political opponents, including the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

“For the SPLM, it is very concerned that the re-legitimization of the NCP which is not based on a fair and free election, might jeopardize the implementation of the remaining provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement,” Hikmat said.

He also said a re-legitimized President Bashir could also have repercussion for Darfur rebel groups.

“As far as the Darfur rebel groups, they think that the re-legitimization of Bashir, given that he is going to argue that look I have been re-elected and therefore what happened in Darfur is not true and might give a sort of legitimate grounding for Bashir to continue not finding a settlement to the Darfur problem,” he said.

Hikmat said if this happens, it would mean that the violence in Darfur would continue because the grievances and root causes would not have been resolved,” he said.

He said if the April election happens in an atmosphere of illegitimacy, the new government and institutions which will be developed to continue the negotiations might not be acceptable by Darfurians, specifically the internally displaced.

At their last meeting in Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, African leaders reiterated their request for the United Nations to invoke Article 16 which allows the UN Security Council to suspend the ICC prosecutions for a period of 12 months so as to give peace a chance in Darfur.

Hikmat said the African Union’s Panel on Darfur led by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, recognizing the lack of an independent legal system in Sudan has recommended the establishment of a hybrid court system in Darfur.

“As far as the ICC (is concerned), that is up to the Sudanese to deal if they could reach a peaceful agreement somewhere in the future for a truce and reconciliation. But still that will not wave the request of the ICC which is to bring Bashir and other culprits into the process for international judicial accountability,” Hikmat said.

source:  VOA News

15 October 2009 – The International Criminal Court (ICC) confirmed today that its prosecutor is looking into last month’s events in Guinea, where at least 150 people were killed when security forces opened fire on an opposition rally.

“A preliminary examination of the situation has been immediately initiated in order to determine whether crimes falling under the Court’s jurisdiction have been perpetrated,” according to a news release issued by the Court, which is an independent, permanent body that investigates and prosecutes people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The Court said that the Prosecutor’s Office has taken note of “serious allegations” surrounding the events of 28 September in the capital, Conakry.

“From the information we have received, from the pictures I have seen, women were abused or otherwise brutalized on the pitch of Conraky’s stadium, apparently by men in uniform” said Deputy Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

“This is appalling, unacceptable. It must never happen again. Those responsible must be held accountable,” she added.

Top UN officials have condemned the violent suppression of the 28 September demonstration which High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has characterized as a “blood bath.”

Guinea has been a State Party to the Rome Statute, which set up the ICC, since July 2003. “As such the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide possibly committed in the territory of Guinea or by nationals of Guinea, including killings of civilians and sexual violence,” the Court stated.

Other situations under preliminary examination by the ICC Prosecutor include Afghanistan, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Georgia, Kenya, and Palestine.

Currently, four situations – the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda and the Darfur region of Sudan – are under investigation by the Prosecutor.

originally from the UN News Centre

On Thursday, the Great Lakes Policy Forum hosted a talk, “The ICC in Africa: Impartial Judge or Neo-Colonial Project?” featuring speakers Ruth Wedgwood, Director of the International Law and Organizations Program at Johns Hopkins University, Suliman Baldo, Africa Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice, and Charles Villa-Vicencio, Ph.D., former Executive Director of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation. Discussion focused on why frustrations towards the ICC have emerged, what the appropriate role for the organization is, and whether its involvement as an outsider can truly provide the reconciliation needed at the local level.

According to its founding treaty, the ICC would only get involved in cases when states are unwilling or genuinely unable to carry out their own investigations and prosecutions. Wedgwood noted that the language, particularly the use of “genuinely,” was prone to subjectivity and led to unprecedented actions, such as the warrant issued for Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir.

The African Union has been a vocal opponent of the ICC’s move to issue an arrest warrant for al-Bashir,.Villa-Vicencio said he sees this reaction as part of a growing antagonism in Africa towards international institutions. In this particular case, the AU had requested from both the ICC and the United Nations Security Council for more time to act before the warrant was issued. Despite these overtures, the ICC went ahead with the warrant, which, according to Villa-Vicencio, undermined the AU’s efforts in Darfur and role in the region’s peace process. Baldo, who spoke at length about the growing frustrations in the Democratic Republic of Congo towards the ICC’s prosecutions in the Ituri region, said that the AU rejection of al-Bashir’ indictment was not a dismissal of the war crimes committed, but an assertion that the AU should be at the center of the region’s security and peace efforts.

Not all of the ICC’s efforts were criticized. The panel agreed that the ICC indictment of Joseph Kony and top commanders of the Lord’s Resistance Army was essential for bringing the rebel group to the negotiating table. Baldo added that the international pressure led Ugandan civil society leaders to create their own set of ideas for seeking reconciliation and accountability—ideas that were incorporated in the Juba Agreement.

Villa-Vicencio suggested that in order for the ICC to achieve both justice and peace, it must increase dialogue with the AU and redirect its focus to building local and regional structures that can do the work of reconciliation themselves. Without local engagement, the ICC risks disconnecting from the very population for whom it seeks justice. He said, “Is there justice when the ICC comes in and local people do not understand, see, or feel the justice?”

As the event’s title suggests, the ICC often evokes impassioned debates, and Thursday’s event was no exception. To read more about the Court, check out Enough’s special page.

originally posted @ Enough Project

Today, the International Criminal Court held a ceremony to welcome the Republic of Chile as the newest State Party to the Rome Statute. The Statute entered into force for Chile on 1 September 2009, bringing the total number of States Parties to the Rome Statute to 109.

In a symbolic act held at the seat of the Court, the President of the Court, Judge Sang–Hyun Song, congratulated the Ambassador of Chile, H.E. Mr Juan Antonio Martabit whilst presenting him with a special edition of the Rome Statute. President Song welcomed the new State Party member: “Even as Chile sifts through its past, by joining the Rome Statute, it has made clear its commitment to a particular vision of a common human future. It is a future of accountability – a future of justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide”, said President Song.
In response to the President and while thanking him for his gift, Ambassador Martabit said, “I would like to emphasise that, although this achievement is the result of the efforts of many sectors of our society, it is most of all due to the personal interest of our President, Ms Michelle Bachelet, who considered the ratification of the Rome Statute a primary goal of her government.”

The ceremony was held in the presence of the Vice-President of the Assembly of States Parties and Ambassador of Mexico, H.E. Mr Jorge Lomónaco. The Vice-President of the ICC, Judge Fatoumata Dembele Diarra, the Prosecutor, Mr Luis Moreno Ocampo, the Registrar, Ms Silvana Arbia, and the judges of the Court also attended the ceremony.

Ambassador Lomónaco paid tribute to the Republic of Chile, remarking on the significant accomplishment of such a ratification in light of the history of Latin American countries in the twentieth century: “I
wish to express my genuine hope that other countries that have yet to join the Rome Statute family will be inspired by Chile’s example and reinforce our common struggle to end impunity”.

Whilst this is the first time that the ICC has organised a ceremony for such an event, it is envisaged that future ceremonies will also be held on the occasion of new States joining the ICC.

Speech of the President of the ICC, Judge Sang-Hyun Song

Speech of the Vice-President of the Assembly of States Parties, the Ambassador of Mexico, H.E. Mr Jorge Lomónaco

Speech of the Ambassador of Chile, H.E. Mr Juan Antonio Martabit

Video footage of the ceremony

An estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people died under his brutal reign of terror. Justice was never served. 80,000 of the country’s minority, named “bloodsuckers” by the tyrant, were expelled with 90 days to flee their property and possessions. Justice was never served. No, this is not al-Bashir’s Sudan. This is Uganda, and at the helm of hell was military dictator and President Idi Amin, who died in exile on Saudi Arabian soil in 2003. Following his 8 years as ruler of Uganda in the 1970s, Idi Amin spent 24 years unpunished, living seaside in the Kingdom. The rivers of justice ran dry as the former President soaked up the sun for more than two decades.

Back then, a system of justice that was unrestrained by geographical borders was merely an armchair exercise in intellectual idealism. Today, that very system is now permanent, global, and on the front lines of the justice business, gradually giving a resounding voice to the victims of the world’s gravest crimes. Much of the conversation surrounding international criminal justice focuses on the capacity, credibility, and complexity of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the system of international criminal justice depends on a much larger framework of international institutions, nation states, non-governmental organizations, regional courts, international law enforcement bodies, and new entities working toward the control of violence, the promotion of lasting security, and the manifestation of justice for the world’s gravest crimes.

We simply cannot let this newly minted system of accountability slip through the cracks of politics as usual or skepticism and doubt. If we do, the moral stride of humanity will have taken one step back, rather than two steps forward. And while this new global system of justice cannot call Idi Amin to account for the litany of crimes he committed, including the expulsion of my mother and father from Uganda in 1972, the mere presence and pursuit of this international structure is touching the lives of many millions of people around the world affected by those engaged in truly heinous crimes.

The Consultative Conference on International Criminal Justice could not come at a more critical moment on the continuum of ending impunity and global cooperation in addressing mass atrocities. Convened by the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University and sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, members of the Steering Committee also include the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the International Center for Transitional Justice. The 3-day conference hosted at the United Nations Headquarters September 9-11 is bringing together 150 high-level participants including the world’s international justice experts, diplomats, scholars, jurists, and civil society actors to openly consult and better align strategies for the next three years. Landmark in nature, this is the first effort of its kind to strengthen the global system of international criminal justice.

Currently, there are four active investigations before the ICC, each with outstanding arrest warrants: Uganda; the Democratic Republic of Congo; Darfur, Sudan; and the Central African Republic. In addition, the Court also has several situations under analysis, including Colombia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire. Entrenched within these investigations, discussions and debates run the threads of local justice versus international justice, enforcement politics and State obligations, perceived biases towards the African continent, and last but not least, the complex relationship between the humanitarian community and the International Criminal Court.

With a number of outstanding arrest warrants and many more countries on the cusp of becoming active ICC investigations, the system of international criminal justice is at a crossroads and in need of stronger alignment amongst its actors. The time is now to understand and continue building a synergistic system that guides the agendas of many towards common goals.

At this defining moment, The Consultative Conference on International Criminal Justice aims to address these issues from the multitude of angles through which international criminal justice is perceived, strengthened, and dependent upon. Presenters include the Prosecutor, Registrar, and President of the International Criminal Court; Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (‘94-‘96); Ambassadors of Mexico, Kenya and Tanzania to the United Nations; Commissioners of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights; Executive Director of Human Rights Watch; President and CEO of Save the Children; President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia; and the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Minister of Justice, among many others.

Crediting Canada with saving their lives, my parents had faith that such forced resettlement from Uganda would ultimately bear its fruit one day. “This was a blessing in disguise,” my father said, examining the last 37 years. Others were not so lucky.

Back then, we could rationalize injustice and inaction by the international community because we lacked a common framework, permanent global institutions, and other enabling tools to save the world’s most vulnerable populations. Today, these ideas are being put into practice, testing the will of humanity to fight for justice. Let us not fail this test, for if we fail, this article will be reprinted with only a handful of words changed—the main one, of course, would be replacing the name of President Idi Amin with President Omar al-Bashir. With the Arab League in support of the Sudanese president, not even the exile haven of choice would change.

originally from the Huffington Post

10 September 2009 – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today expressed the continued support of the United Nations for the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which he said has become the “centrepiece” of the global criminal justice system since it came into existence only several years ago.
“The establishment of the International Criminal Court was a landmark in the efforts of the international community to enforce the applicability of international humanitarian law, and to advance the cause of justice and the rule of law on a universal scale,” Mr. Ban said in a message to the Consultative Conference on International Criminal Justice.

The ICC is an independent, permanent court that investigates and prosecutes people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and is based on a treaty known as the Rome Statue. To date, 100 States are party to the Statute, which has nearly 140 signatories.

The efforts by the UN to further the causes of peace, development and human rights are closely connected to the work of the ICC, Mr. Ban noted, adding that the world body stands ready to do all that is needed to “facilitate the Court’s noble and important mission.”

In the message, delivered by UN Legal Counsel Patricia O’Brien, the Secretary-General pointed out the increased support for the idea that justice must be an essential part of post-conflict strategies to ensure a sustainable peace.

This could take the form of international accountability mechanisms, boosting national accountability methods, and setting up possible non-judicial forums such as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, he said.

Since the Rome Statue entered into force in 2002, Mr. Ban said, “the activities of the Court and its Prosecutor have had a discernible effect on potential perpetrators of international crimes.”

Currently, four situations – the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda and the Darfur region of Sudan – are under investigation by the ICC Prosecutor.

originally from UN News Center

There’s been a curious development at the ICC since I was away that is worth keeping an eye on for those interested in following the precedent-setting decisions of the court’s first trial - against DRC militia leader, Thomas Lubanga Dyillo.

In essence, representatives of the victims are trying to get in charges of sexual slavery and cruel and inhuman treatment that many human rights organizations criticized the Prosecution for not charging from the outset. What is surprising is that the Majority of the Trial Chamber (Fulford dissenting) is considering the request. I started writing a summary and then saw that Kevin Jon Heller over at Opinio Juris has already done the work for me.

It is worth reading Heller’s analysis in full because the implications of where this ends up are significant. While my heart is with the representatives of the victims, my head is not. If the judges get to effectively “add” facts after the Prosecution has presented its case, not only does this impinge on the rights of the accused, but it also means the Prosecution loses its prerogative to determine the parameters of its case.

from Bec Hamilton’s blog

Today’s New York Times report that the U.S. Justice Department is advising pursuit of prisoner-abuse cases and allegations of torture is a welcome development and a hopeful step in the restoration of respect for the rule of law in our country. The recommendation made to Attorney General Eric Holder by the Office of Professional Responsibility includes cases in Afghanistan that had been closed by the Bush administration - might these be some of the same cases that are being examined by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC)?  Attorney General Holder is making a bold and necessary move, and it will be fascinating to see how far the findings will lead up the chain of command of the Bush administration - perhaps to the “Decider” himself?

Prosecuting heads of state is always a tricky business fraught with political peril, as the ICC issuance of an arrest warrant for Sudan’s President al-Bashir clearly demonstrates.  But it’s good to bear in mind the most recent example of a successful prosecution of a head of state, that of ex-President Alberto Fujimori of Peru, convicted to 25 years in prison for committing human rights crimes while in office.  It was an arduous 17-year process for the victims, but they persisted during the dark years of the zenith of Fujimori’s power in the 90s, dogging him after he fled to Japan in 2000, and getting him extradited to Peru after he landed in Chile in 2005 to try to stage a political comeback.  His extradition to a prison in Peru was followed by loud and violent protests from Fujimori’s supporters, including the desecration of the Eye That Cries, a memorial to the 70,000 victims of Peru’s 20-year battle with Shining Path, but the trial went forward nonetheless.  It’s surprising that the trial of Fujimori has received so little attention from the international press - it marks a historical milestone not only for Peru but for the ongoing struggle to establish an effective international justice system, and it should be celebrated!  An excellent must-read book on the subject is Prosecuting Heads of State, an overview of efforts to bring rogue leaders to account which reveals some surprises, like the fact that since 1990 at least 67 former heads of state have been formally prosecuted for serious human rights violations or economic crimes committed during their administration. You can read the introduction to the book or order it at the website of the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ).

The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court is an epic, nail-biting account of the new International Criminal Court’s struggle to prosecute perpetrators — however powerful or concealed they may be — of crimes against humanity as the Court fights to establish its own credibility on the world stage. The film shows the lead-up to the court’s most recent and sensational action, the indictment of Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir on March 4, 2009, for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Established by treaty in 2002 in response to the mass atrocities that stained the late 20th century, the International Criminal Court (known as the ICC) is the first permanent international criminal court created to seek justice for victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the Court, given a historic mandate by its founding 100-plus nations, was not given a police force or other enforcement arm. Moreover, the ICC faces major obstacles in pursuing its mission from nations that did not join the treaty.

Paco de Onís, Peter Kinoy and Pamela Yates’ The Reckoning, an Official Selection at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival, has its national television premiere on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 10 p.m. on PBS during the 22nd season of P.O.V. (check local listings). The series continues on Tuesdays at 10 p.m. through Sept. 22, and returns with fall and winter specials. American television’s longest- running independent documentary series, P.O.V. is the recipient of an Emmy for Excellence in Television Documentary Filmmaking.

** I’m twittering the hearing at: http://twitter.com/bechamilton for those who can’t catch the live webcast**

There is a hearing at the ICC this morning which may seem to be on an obscure legal point to the general public, but is actually of significance to the global system of justice established by the Rome Statute.

The hearing concerns a challenge to the admissibility of the case against DRC warlord, Germain Katanga.

Charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and rape, were confirmed against Katanga by Pre-Trial Chamber I while I was at the court last year. His trial (jointly with Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui) is due to commence in September this year. However, in a motion filed in February, Katanga’s defense team (led by the impressive British barrister, David Hooper) are challenging whether the case against Katanga is admissible (re-stated in plain English: Does the ICC have the authority to hear this case or should his case be dealt with by the DRC’s judicial system?).

Under the system established by the Rome Statute, the ICC is a court of last resort. By design, the drafters of the Rome Statute decided that national judicial systems should have primacy, and only if these systems were unable or unwilling to conduct genuine investigations and prosecutions would the ICC come into play. In legal terms this is “the principle of complementarity.” In practical terms it means that the system established by the Rome Statute aims to encourage justice at the local level first - with justice being undertaken at the international legal only when the local system fails.

I personally think that complementarity it is a very positive design feature of the Rome Statute that is not nearly well enough understood by those who lump the ICC into the same category as the ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia (which do not operate on the complementarity principle). As ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo put it when he came to office: “The efficiency of the International Criminal Court should not be measured by the number of cases that reach the court or by the content of its decisions. Quite on the contrary, because of the exceptional character of this institution, the absence of trials led by this court as a consequence of the regular functioning of national institutions, would be its major success.”

So why then is the Prosecution fighting the Defense on the admissibility of this case before the ICC?

In essence it comes down to a fight over the meaning of the word “case.”  In this morning’s hearing I expect we will see the Prosecution argue that the case against Katanga was not being investigated or prosecuted by the DRC, and they will do so using the definition of the word “case” that Pre-Trial Chamber I established several years ago in Lubanga - Namely that a case involves the same person and same conduct:  “. . . for a case arising from an investigation of a situation to be inadmissible, national proceedings must encompass both the person and the conduct which is the subject of the case before the court.” (Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I, 24 Feb. 2006, para 37). Therefore, the fact that the DRC were investigating Katanaga is not, in and of itself, enough to make the case inadmissible. It would only be inadmissible if they were also investigating him for the same conduct as in the ICC case.

By contrast, the Defense has argued in its submissions that this interpretation of the word “case” is too narrow. They also argue that the DRC authorities would have started looking at the conduct the ICC is now looking at if the ICC had not begun its investigation.

My view, for what it’s worth, is that given the Chamber’s definition of the word “case” in Lubanga, the Prosecution’s argument is solid as a matter of law. (Moreover, with my cynics hat on I have to wonder what’s the likelihood that a panel of Judges deciding they no longer have the power to adjudicate a case that they have already confirmed the charges in??).  However Hooper rarely makes a vacuous argument, and there are some policy consequences flowing from the Chamber’s initial decision to define the word “case” as narrowly as they did in Lubanga that Hooper is the first to really draw the Court’s attention to.

In short - for anyone interested in the balance of local vs. international justice, this hearing is worth paying attention to. You can see it livestreamed through the Court’s site from 10am (Dutch time) this morning in English or French.

re-posted by IJCentral from Bec Hamilton

I urge you to read Justice Richard Goldstone’s wonderful and concise overview of the state of international justice, published on the Op-Ed page of today’s New York Times. It provides an encouraging assessment of the remarkable progress that has been made on the international justice front, a reminder that all the efforts to cultivate international respect for the rule of law, spearheaded by a “mature global network of human rights organizations”, are bearing fruit and reining in the culture of impunity enjoyed by the most powerful violators of human rights.  Perpetrators of mass atrocities used to living by the rule of force and negotiating amnesties and personal benefits in exchange for peace are finding out that that route to retirement is no longer open for them - Charles Taylor is a stark example.  And the arrogance of Fujimori’s ploy to return to Peru for a presidential run, even though he was a fugitive from justice, led to his landmark trial that ended in a conviction and 25-year sentence for human rights violations.

Justice Goldstone is right to remind us all about the progress made in the quest for a world where justice and human dignity prevail.  Human rights activists and concerned citizens, often feeling beleaguered and powerless in the face of myriad conflicts, unbridled violence, and oppressive regimes, need to see that if we persevere there is light at the end of the tunnel.  Justice Goldstone was just awarded the MacArthur Award for International Justice, a well deserved recognition of his incredible career and accomplishments in advancing international justice, a list too long to enumerate in this post.  Skylight Pictures made a short film that honors Justice Goldstone’s role in the creation of an effective international justice system - it was shown at the MacArthur-sponsored award ceremony in The Hague on May 25, and you can see it here.

Now we have to get down to the business of bringing accountability for the abuses of rule of law and human dignity perpetrated during the Bush administration - No One Above the Law! And that includes President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan…

Angelina Jolie’s visit to the Thomas Lubanga trial this week at the International Criminal Court made the celebrity gossip press yesterday and the twittersphere, as several tweets popped up on the International Criminal Court (ICC) feed on the IJCentral map.  With six children of her own, it’s good to see her using her celebrity power to bring much-needed attention to the crime of recruiting child soldiers.  Angelina is very committed to the ICC and its justice mandate, and is very informed about the Court and its activities.  Last year through the Jolie/Pitt Foundation she sponsored a day-long symposium at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, bringing together several luminaries of the international justice world to discuss U.S. policy toward the ICC.

There is actually a great latent interest in U.S. policy toward the ICC.  After every screening on the festival circuit of The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court the first question audiences ask is “What is Obama’s policy on the ICC?”  We’ve found that audiences come out of the film feeling energized and looking for a way to get involved with the international justice movement.  The national U.S. broadcast of The Reckoning on PBS on July 14 (on the P.O.V. series) will be the launching pad for No One Above the Law, a campaign to generate support for global rule of law, and reengage the U.S. with the international justice movement.

What was the UN Security Council (UNSC) thinking when it issued Resolution 1593 in 2005, referring the ongoing situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC)?  Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo took the case, conducted a 20-month investigation, came back with evidence, and requested arrest warrants - he did his job, in accordance with the justice mandate of the ICC.  At briefings he has subsequently given every 6 months, he has updated the UNSC on the progress of the investigation.  After obtaining arrest warrants from the ICC judges for Sudanese government Minister Ahmad Haroun, Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb, and President Omar al-Bashir, he has consistently urged the UNSC and the international community represented at the UN, to execute the warrants. Instead the UNSC has balked at following through, and the African Union and the Arab League have rallied to support al-Bashir. 

Now there is even the possibility that the Obama administration might consider appeasing al-Bashir, a disgraceful approach if it happens (I suspect that Obama’s desire for dialogue with Iran, with its ties to Sudan, would have something to do with a rapprochement with al-Bashir).  So what did the UNSC and the international community expect when they asked the Prosecutor to investigate?  Did they have any plan for what to do if he came back with evidence of crimes against humanity?  They don’t seem to have thought that far ahead, or simply issued Resolution 1593 for political expediency.  But now they must act - we as global citizens must pressure our leaders to uphold the rule of law.  If you live in the U.S., write to your congressperson and President Obama and let them know you want the ICC warrants to be acted upon!  And citizens around the world, IJCentral members, send an email to your Minister of Foreign Affairs urging them to support global rule of law!

At a recent post-screening discussion of documentary film “The Reckoning: The Battle for the International Criminal Court”, a Darfuri journalist said that amongst Darfuris, the surprise is not that the ICC issued an arrest warrant for President al-Bashir charging him with crimes against humanity in Darfur, or that al-Bashir expelled 13 humanitarian groups from the Darfur Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps. The real surprise for Darfuris was that humanitarian organizations and the international community seemed taken by surprise by al-Bashir’s actions after the warrant was issued. As the Darfuri journalist, Tajeldin Abdalla Adam from Radio Dabanga said, ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo publicly requested the warrants; al-Bashir publicly said he would retaliate; so why wasn’t the international community making preparations to respond to this and to preemptively pressure the Sudanese regime to curtail its actions? Al-Bashir and his National Congress Party have been at it for 20 years, presiding over the tragedy of southern Sudan (2 million victims), arming and giving safe haven to the notorious Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda (20,000 victims, 1.5 million displaced), and now Darfur (200,000 victims, over 2 million displaced). How long are we supposed to wait? It is time for the international community to definitively isolate President al-Bashir, and make it clear to any of his potential successors that the rogue state tactics of the National Congress Party regime will no longer be tolerated.

Accountability is not something a constituency should have to beg from its government.  A lack of transparency and a paper trail of secrets is not something that people who fight for their country and defend their democracy deserve. Alas, these types of abuses of power and abstractions of the law have become so commonplace over the last eight years that it’s hard to remember where we started and how we got into this mess.

With the recent release of the Bush administration terrorism memos we are beginning to learn first-hand what many Americans and people around the world suspected had terribly gone wrong with this manipulation of governance.  During the aftermath of (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) the Bush administration decided it would be a opportune moment enact a complete deconstruction of social liberties and give itself the type of impunity only sought after by the types of despots and dictators that the American government has long vowed to dethrone and displace. 

In 1998 we saw the indictment of Augusto Pinochet by the Spanish Magistrate Baltasar Garzón for crimes against humanity. On April 7, 2009 the world saw former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori found guilty of human right abuses and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Finally, on March 4th 2009 the ICC issued an unprecedented arrest warrant for sitting head of state Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir on counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Obviously there is a strong trend afoot in the international community to stop the egregious abuses of power and the murder of innocent civilian populations under the threat of war. We are witnessing a gradual acceptance of an international rule of law, but there is still much momentum to be built.  Not that there hasn’t been an acceptance since the Nuremberg trials as a result of World War II or after the signing of the Rome Statue, but I mean the active and engaged acceptance that brings crimes to the surface of public opinion and furthermore its criminals to court.

In March a Spanish court has moved forward into opening an official criminal investigation against top administration officials in the former Bush administration including former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and former Justice Department Lawyer John C. Yoo for allegedly violating international law “by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba”.  This bold step is led by none other than Baltasar Garzón, and is a necessary beginning towards accountability for the United States. Although it may be unnecessary for the United States to have to export its alleged criminals, it does seem imminent that something must be done about them. The past eight years of American involvement in foreign and domestic politics has not only been an embarrassment but a potentially ruthless and criminal interpretation of the law and must not go unpunished.

Spain’s Attorney General has already encouraged Garzón to drop his investigation into the Bush administration and President Barack Obama has assured C.I.A. operatives involved in the torture described in the terrorism memo’s “that they would not be prosecuted for actions that their superiors told them were legal.”  Are the people of the United States going to step-up and make sure its leaders are accountable for their actions?  Are they going to vow against impunity and support a global rule of law?