IJCentral: International Justice Central

The US has imposed a travel ban on a senior Kenyan government official for obstructing efforts to rid the country of corruption.

Johnnie Carson, the US state department Africa chief, said he was considering bans on three other officials - but declined to release any names.

Kenya agreed to carry through reforms after 1,300 people died in post-election violence last year.

But the US believes some officials have deliberately been blocking the reforms.

The BBC’s Will Ross, in Nairobi, says the US has to perform a balancing act when it comes to dealing with Kenya.

On the one hand Washington wants to exert pressure and help sideline some of Kenya’s more unsavoury politicians.

But the country is a vital ally in the region which the US relies on to help to dowse the flames of Islamist militancy in neighbouring Somalia, our correspondent says.

Sealed envelope

Mr Carson told reporters in Nairobi: “The US government has taken the decision to revoke the visa of a senior Kenyan government official.”

Without revealing names, he described the politician as a “senior government official of influence”.

He said the individual had “obstructed the reform process, failed to end the cycle of impunity and has been an obstacle in the fight against corruption”.

Last month Mr Carson sent a letter to 15 officials warning them they faced travel bans if they failed to support the “reform agenda”.

He urged Kenya to strengthen its institutions and eradicate corruption to avoid more violence after the next election in 2012.

A power-sharing government was eventually set up after weeks of violence following the December 2007 election, but it has struggled to restore stability.

Rights groups blamed the police for many of the deaths in the riots.

International mediators have pressed the government to set up a tribunal to investigate the killings, but officials continue to miss every deadline they are set.

In July, former UN chief Kofi Annan passed the names of those accused of orchestrating the violence to the International Criminal Court in a sealed envelope.

The list, drawn up by a Kenyan judicial commission, has not been made public.

from BBC 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

The government on Monday admitted that it would not keep the promise it made to the International Criminal Court to set up a local tribunal by September 30.

Instead, it will write to the ICC asking for more time to pass the law which will set up the tribunal.

This is the third time the government is failing to honour deadlines in bringing to justice those who masterminded the violence that erupted after the 2007 presidential election.

‘We have failed’

“Let us face the facts as they are; we cannot beat the deadline set by the ICC during our July 3 meeting. We have failed,” admitted Justice, National Cohesion and Constitutional Affairs minister Mutula Kilonzo.

At that meeting, the government committed to setting up the tribunal and provide information on witness protection and progress in investigations.

“On the other two, we have already achieved. But we have failed to convince the country to accept a credible judicial mechanism for trying the post-election violence perpetrators,” Mr Kilonzo said.

Parliament went on recess without discussing the Imanyara Bill, which proposes the establishment of such a tribunal. The Cabinet rejected a similar proposal by Mr Kilonzo.

Mr Kilonzo said although the Bill had received the Speaker’s consent, it was still not tabled. “Therefore, we haven’t fulfilled our obligation,” he said, adding that he would either write or call ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to brief him on the new development.

“We will tell him sorry,” he said.

The minister did not seem too sure how he was going to get in touch with Mr Moreno-Ocampo, saying he had not decided whether to write or call him.

Closed chapter

He also seemed to have given up on a local tribunal, at one time saying he considered it a “closed chapter” and that the sooner Mr Moreno-Ocampo comes to Kenya, the better for the country.

Kenya has ratified and domesticated the Rome Statutes and the ICC prosecutor was free to come into the country. The Internal Security ministry had the power to extend such as invitation, said Mr Kilonzo.

A request for an extension of time is unlikely to be received warmly at The Hague.

In a statement on the ICC website, Mr Moreno-Ocampo said he wanted to make Kenya an example to the world on how to deal with impunity.

President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga were to sign a pact for the formation of the tribunal by December 17, last year. After that, MPs were to have until January 30, 2009, to amend the Constitution and entrench the tribunal, which was to be up and running by March 1, 2009.

Kenya asked for more time until end of July, and later until September 3.

“The failure lies on the shoulders of the whole country and I cannot carry the baby alone,” Mr Kilonzo said.

He was speaking at a Naivasha hotel during an induction for members of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC).

He told the team that the TJRC Act gave them the independence to do their work without interference.

Witch-hunting

“Universally, TJRCs are known to be very expensive. It is, therefore, expected that you will design a process and structures that are responsive of these facts,” the minister said.

The truth team is not an instrument of prosecution or witch-hunting, nor can it be a whitewash as the sceptics would want to suggest, he said.

Kenya has ratified and domesticated the Rome Statutes and the ICC prosecutor was free to come into the country. The Internal Security ministry had the power to extend such as invitation, said Mr Kilonzo.

A request for an extension of time is unlikely to be received warmly at The Hague.

In a statement on the ICC website, Mr Moreno-Ocampo said he wanted to make Kenya an example to the world on how to deal with impunity.

President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga were to sign a pact for the formation of the tribunal by December 17, last year. After that, MPs were to have until January 30, 2009, to amend the Constitution and entrench the tribunal, which was to be up and running by March 1, 2009.

Kenya asked for more time until end of July, and later until September 3.

“The failure lies on the shoulders of the whole country and I cannot carry the baby alone,” Mr Kilonzo said.

He was speaking at a Naivasha hotel during an induction for members of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC).

He told the team that the TJRC Act gave them the independence to do their work without interference.

Witch-hunting

“Universally, TJRCs are known to be very expensive. It is, therefore, expected that you will design a process and structures that are responsive of these facts,” the minister said.

The truth team is not an instrument of prosecution or witch-hunting, nor can it be a whitewash as the sceptics would want to suggest, he said.

“It cannot target particular communities or individual personalities, otherwise its purpose would be defeated,” he said.

Its job is to heal the wounds of the victims and reconcile the nation, he said and called on the international community to help. The induction was attended by TJRC chairperson Bethuel Kiplagat, his deputy Betty Murungi and other commissioners.

originally posted @ The Nation

The International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Moreno O’campo has proposed a three pronged approach to deal with the perpetrators of the post election violence that rocked Kenya after the announcement of the presidential election results on 30th December 2007.

Speaking at a meeting with Kenya’s Lands Minister James Orengo at the IC C headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, O’campo routed for the creation of special courts to try those who committed the atrocities, as the ICC will deal only with those who bore the greatest responsibility of the violence.

He also added that the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission be used as an avenue to deliver justice through creating an enabling environment for confessions. He said through TJRC, many will seek forgiveness. The TJRC has been the preference of the political class, who are suspected to have been behind the violence.

In July, the Kenyan cabinet resolved to back the TJRC, contrary to agreements between the Kenyan delegation and O’campo that the Kenyan parliament sets up a special tribunal by the end of September 2009.

Orengo is at The Hague on the invitation of the Dutch Government for a human rights conference. Both Orengo and the ICC prosecutor addressed the conference, with the Kenyan lands minister presenting a paper on fighting impunity and peace building. He was part of the mediation team that came up with proposals of the formation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Post Election Violence, which proposed that the Kenyan parliament sets up a special tribunal to try those behind the mayhem, or the ICC takes over.

Currently, Kenyans and the international community await for the outcome of the Special Tribunal Bill that is being fronted by MP Gitobu Imanyara. The bill is currently at the publication stage. Two attempts by the government to set up the special tribunal have hit a brick wall, after the country’s parliament rejected the move.

originally posted @ Zimbabwe Metro

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

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

UNITED NATIONS — The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court said Wednesday he is collecting information on possible war crimes by NATO forces and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Luis Moreno Ocampo said he is also conducting preliminary inquiries on possible war crimes in Georgia, Colombia, Kenya, Ivory Coast, and by Israeli forces in Gaza.

Ocampo told a briefing on the emerging international criminal justice system that he plans to open four new investigations in the next three years, but he refused to disclose any details.

The International Criminal Court, which began operating in 2002, is the world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal. Afghanistan is one of the 110 countries that have ratified the Rome treaty which created the tribunal and are therefore legally bound by its provisions.

Under the treaty, the court can step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

Ocampo said it has been “very difficult” to collect precise information about some of the alleged crimes, but his office has benefited from reports produced by non-governmental organizations who “arrived before us and provided information to us.”

He said he has requested information from human rights groups and groups inside Afghanistan as well as the Afghan government – and would be “very open” to information from foreign governments.

Taliban fighters have been accused of many brutal killings. There have also been some accusations of U.S. forces in Afghanistan using excessive force and torturing prisoners.

He confirmed that allegations involved both the Taliban and NATO forces.

The Clinton administration signed the Rome Treaty establishing the court, but the Bush administration rescinded the U.S. signature, arguing that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecution of American troops.

Asked whether any NATO soldier is now a potential target of the court if he or she commits a war crime in a country under the court’s jurisdiction, he replied that NATO’s legal adviser was at the court’s headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands last week discussing this issue.

In the training NATO is doing, Ocampo said, it is explaining to colonels that in the future they could end up before the court if they commit atrocities.

“That is the most important (thing) because these massive atrocities are planned. So if those who are planning know they will be prosecuted, they will do something different,” he said.

reposted from the Huffington Post

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).

** 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?