December 23, 2012

Gambian Will Lead Prosecution in Hague

A lawyer from Gambia, Fatou Bensouda, was named the new chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on Monday, making her the future public face and chief strategist of the tribunal responsible for investigating the world’s grave atrocities.

She will be only the second person to hold the job when she takes over from Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, whose term of office expires in June. She is currently Mr. Moreno-Ocampo’s deputy at the court, which is based in The Hague.

Ms. Bensouda, 50, was voted in by consensus at a meeting at the United Nations of the 120 countries that have recognized the jurisdiction of the first permanent criminal court. The decision came after a yearlong search that involved a list of more than 50 candidates, which was whittled down to 8, then to 4.

But from the start, Ms. Bensouda had the support of almost 70 countries, among them most of the court’s African members. After it became clear that Ms. Bensouda would be the only candidate who could produce a consensus, the last remaining contender, Tanzania’s chief justice, Mohamed Chande Othman, withdrew.

When Ms. Bensouda becomes the world’s most visible prosecutor for a single nine-year term, she may bring a change of style with her soft-spoken, low-key manner — a sharp contrast to her more publicity-conscious boss, who succeeded in quickly thrusting the new institution into the limelight after it opened its doors in 2002.

But having served as deputy prosecutor since 2004, Ms. Bensouda is expected to bring continuity rather than sharp changes to her powerful office, at least in the near future. A large docket of cases awaits, involving war crimes or crimes against humanity, and in the case of Sudan, charges of genocide. Only one trial has been concluded. Two others are going on.

Supporters of the court now hope that the presence of an African prosecutor could tone down some of the fierce criticism it has received from Africa, where many have labeled it a neocolonial tool in the hands of the West because all of the cases so far have come from African countries.

In four cases — involving the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Uganda and Ivory Coast — the governments themselves called in the court. Two cases, involving Sudan and Libya, were initiated on instructions from the United Nations Security Council. And only one case, involving six suspects linked to post-election violence in Kenya, was initiated by the prosecutor’s office.

But such details were overlooked in a campaign against the court that was begun several years ago by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and was joined more quietly by President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, who is wanted by the court on charges that include genocide. Charges against Mr. Qaddafi, issued this year, were annulled recently after he was killed.

Being an African could bring different pressures to bear on Ms. Bensouda. Groups from Kenya continue to demand that investigations of their six citizens be conducted at home. And the African Union, which early on proclaimed Ms. Bensouda as its candidate, insists that its member countries ignore the court’s arrest warrant for Mr. Bashir. Some have called for the warrant to be dropped.

At a news conference after her election, Ms. Bensouda was asked how, as chief prosecutor, she would handle criticism from Africa. “My origin, being an African, has nothing to do with my mandate,” she said.

Ms. Bensouda served as a legal adviser and trial attorney at the international tribunal that prosecuted leaders of the 1994 Rwanda genocide. In Gambia, she has served as attorney general and minister of justice.

 

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/world/europe/fatou-bensouda-becomes-lead-prosecutor-at-international-criminal-court.html?_r=1

West Demands Security Council Action On Syria

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United States and Germany on Monday led Western calls for the divided UN Security Council to act on Syria’s deadly assault against protests after UN investigators said crimes against humanity had been committed.

“It is past time for the Security Council to take much more decisive action with respect to Syria,” said US ambassador Susan Rice. The Council cannot “stand idly by,” added Germany’s UN envoy Peter Wittig.

The 15-member council was split last month by a European-drafted resolution condemning President Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown. Russia and China vetoed the resolution, while Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon abstained.

But a report by a UN human rights commission, which said crimes against humanity had been ordered by the “highest levels” of Assad’s government, and the Arab League decision to order sanctions have strengthened the calls for action.

The United States and its European allies have already condemned the rare double veto by Russia and China.

But Rice said that with the Arab League sanctions and the “now well-documented atrocities” outlined in the UN report “we think it is time to revisit the question of what might be possible here in New York.”

Wittig called the Arab League sanctions “historic“. “The council here cannot stand idly by regarding what the regional organization has said so strongly. We think the council should take up that decision and endorse it and reinforce it,” he told reporters.

Rice and Wittig said informal talks on possible action would soon start.

Because of the internal divisions, the Security Council has so far only agreed a statement, with less moral weight, on the violence.

The 193 member UN General Assembly passed a resolution last week deploring the violence.

And rights groups also stepped up demands for Security Council action following the new UN report on killings and arrests in Syria since mid-March. The UN says more than 3,500 people have been killed.

Amnesty International called on the Security Council to refer the case to the International Criminal Court, order an arms embargo and freeze the assets of Assad and his associates.

“Continued inaction by the Security Council will not only allow the commission with impunity of more human rights violations in Syria, but embolden present and future violators,” said an Amnesty statement.

Human Rights Watch said the UN Human Rights Council must refer the Syria case to the UN Security Council and call for it “to impose targeted sanctions and refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.

 

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/west-demands-security-council-action-on.html

Secrets Not Saif: Death Penalty Threat for Gaddafi’s Son

After Colonel Gaddafi’s battlefield execution last month, there had been hopes his captured son Saif Al-Islam would receive a fair trial. However, there are powerful figures in the West who could influence the course of justice.

Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi is a man with a lot to say. He is the last chance the world has to find out how the Gaddafi regime went from Public Enemy No 1 to bosom buddies with Britain and other Western powers.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague says it is not going to call for his extradition, instead allowing Libya to try him on home soil.

His future might indeed be bleak in the hands of Libya’s new rulers. Libyan officials are already calling for the death penalty in what many fear is a tactic to keep those dirty secrets hidden forever.

Political analyst William Engdahl told RT believes matters have been arranged so that “the information about the relationships that Gaddafi and the CIA [had] over decades will not come out.”

He believes Western powers are notoriously dedicated to protecting their secrets. “Look at what happened to the trial of Milosevic,” he said.

Saif Gaddafi was his father’s right-hand man and a crucial mediating go-between with the West. He enjoyed a playboy lifestyle in London, counting Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Prince Andrew amongst his pals. There are even reports he was entertained at Buckingham Palace.

He studied at one of London’s top universities. He was even invited back to give a speech there as recently as last year, when he was introduced by a professor as someone who “looks to democracy, civil society and deep liberal values for the core of his inspiration” – a far cry from the Gaddafis’ previous role as international pariahs.

Libya’s oil wealth meant it had a lot to give, and some details of what Britain won in return have already emerged.

Saif Gaddafi’s alma mater was given 1.5 million pounds by his charitable foundation as part of a deal to educate hundreds of Libya’s future civil servants.

And it wasn’t just Britain.

According to Saif Gaddafi, Libya funded Nicolas Sarkozy’s path to the French presidency in return for a seat at France’s table.

However, the Gaddafis’ fall from favor was sudden and spectacular.

And since then, according to Saif Al-Islam, their former friends have been frantically trying to cover up their past links with the family, desperate to stave off a trial at the International Criminal Court.

“Under the table they are trying to negotiate with us a deal, saying if you accept this deal we will take care of the court. What does this mean? It means that the court is controlled by the countries that are attacking us,” he said in one of his interviews.

British Labor MP Jeremy Corbyn told RT he believes the ICC’s willingness to allow Saif Gaddafi to be tried at home all but guarantees that any inconvenient truths he carries will be buried forever:

“Libya insists it is capable of giving Saif Gaddafi a fair trial despite its judicial system not being independent for over 40 years,” says the MP. “It is still unclear whether he will be tried at all. Rival ruling factions are fighting over who gets to exact revenge. With the death penalty likely, it seems Saif Gaddafi and his secrets will be silenced.”

 

Source: https://rt.com/news/saif-islam-death-penalty-097/

USA Opposition to the International Criminal Court

Until recently, the United States of America has strongly opposed the International Criminal Court citing fears that it could bring politically-motivated prosecutions against US nationals.

US Opposition to the International Criminal Court

During the drafting of the Rome Statute, the US demanded that the work of the Court should be controlled by the United Nations Security Council (of which it is a permanent veto-holding member), which would decide which cases the Court could and could not prosecute.

The Rome Conference, however, decided to establish an independent Prosecutor and limited Security Council control to being able to defer a case for 12 months in the interest of international peace and security. To ensure that the Court could never be involved in politically-motivated prosecutions, the drafters included substantial safeguards and fair trial guarantees into the Rome Statute.

Despite these safeguards, the US was one of only seven states to vote against the adoption of the Rome Statute.

Less than two years later, there was a remarkable change in position when, on 31 December 2000, President Clinton demonstrated US support for the Court by signing the Rome Statute. Five months later, however, in May 2001, the new Bush administration revoked the US signature and commenced a worldwide campaign against the Court.

  • The administration demanded that a number of United Nations Security Council peace-keeping resolutions include text purporting to exempt nationals of countries that had not ratified the Rome Statute accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
  • It launched a worldwide campaign for other countries to enter into illegal impunity agreements committing them not to surrender US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes to the Court. US laws were enacted, including the American Servicemembers Protection Act and the Nethercutt Amendment, requiring the government to withdraw military and other assistance from countries that refused to sign agreements.
  • In some cases, the United States lobbied governments supporting the Court not to ratify the Rome Statute.

Amnesty International campaigned actively against these initiatives to undermine the International Criminal Court.

The US campaign against the International Criminal Court fails

The campaign failed and has now been largely abandoned. In June 2004, the United States withdrew a United Nations Security Council resolution seeking to renew previously enacted resolutions purporting to grant exemptions to nationals of non-states parties to the Rome Statute involved in peacekeeping missions.

In the light of the revelations of prisoner abuse in Iraq, the public opposition to the renewal by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and sustained campaigning by civil society, including Amnesty International, at least eight members of the Security Council refused to support the renewal of the resolution.

The worldwide campaign for impunity agreements also failed. Although it is reported that more approximately 100 states signed agreements with the US, most agreements have not been ratified and have not entered into force.

Many states refused to sign agreements upholding their commitment to international justice, even when US military and other assistance was withdrawn. Amnesty International’s members in countries around the world lobbied their governments not to enter into agreements.

In March 2006, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that the campaign to secure impunity agreements was under review. Since then, many countries that refused to sign agreements have been granted waivers so that they will not be sanctioned. Reports of initiatives to sign agreements with other states have decreased significantly.

Moreover, while the campaign against the Court has failed, the US government has even supported some of its work. In March 2005, the US decided not to oppose a UN Security Council resolution referring the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. There have also been indications that the US government may be willing to cooperate with the Court in its investigations.

Amnesty International is campaigning to build on these positive developments by promoting US cooperation with the International Criminal Court as a first step towards future ratification of the Rome Statute.

 

Source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/international-justice/issues/international-criminal-court/usa-icc