IJCentral: International Justice Central

KHARTOUM — Sudanese authorities on Sunday arrested Islamist opposition leader Hassan al-Turabi and closed his newspaper, party officials said, sparking a furious reaction from the opposition.
“At around midnight (2100 GMT Saturday), a group of security officers arriving in three cars, came and took Hassan al-Turabi from his home,” his secretary Awad Babakir told AFP.
In a dawn raid later, authorities confiscated the newspaper of Turabi’s Popular Congress Party (PCP) and arrested its editor-in-chief.
“After the arrest of the secretary general of the Popular Congress Party, security authorities stormed the printing house of the daily Rai Al-Shaab and confiscated all copies of the paper,” said PCP politburo chief Kamal Omar.
“Authorities then took over the newspaper offices in central Khartoum and ordered all the journalists to leave.”
The editor-in-chief, Abuzerr Ali al-Amin, told AFP by telephone he had been detained.
“At around 9:10 am (0610 GMT), a group of security and intelligence officials came to my house, put me in a car and took me to one of their offices,” he said.
Two other journalists from the paper, Ashraf Abdel Aziz and Dahab Ibrahim, were also arrested, party officials said.
A pro-government press body said intelligence chief General Mohammed Atta al-Moula had suspended the paper’s publication.
He “decided to put under supervision the press and information holdings of the Al-Nadwa company and its daily Rai Al-Shaab,” the Sudanese Media Centre reported.
The information ministry said the action came after the paper published “erroneous” material.
“It published on its front page information claiming a serious conflict existed between Egypt and Sudan,” and that engineers from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were in the country for a joint project, it said in a statement.
The government “is concerned about preserving liberties… but any flouting of the law will be punished.”
Sunday’s arrests sparked angry reactions from the opposition, who threatened to stage public protests and bring down the regime of President Omar al-Beshir.
“We will do everything we can within the law, sit-ins, demonstrations… We will embarrass this regime and expose it before the international community,” Turabi’s deputy Abdallah Hassan Ahmed told a news conference.
Some 300 PCP members gathered outside party offices chanting anti-government slogans and demanding the release of those arrested, an AFP journalist said.
A coalition of 17 opposition parties, including the heavyweight Umma party, signed a statement condemning Turabi’s arrest as a “violation against freedoms and democratic transformation and the constitution.”
The head of the Umma and last democratically elected president in Sudan, Sadiq al-Mahdi, arrived in Cairo on Sunday to discuss the situation after Turabi’s arrest, sources told AFP.
The former southern rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Movement—partners in a coalition government—also condemned Turabi’s arrest.
“The arrest is outside the law, it is rejected. It is a violation of the constitution,” SPLM senior member and former presidential candidate Yasser Arman, who withdrew from April elections before polling day, told AFP.
“After stealing the election, (the ruling National Congress Party) should not be stealing freedoms. This arrest exposes their weakness,” Arman said. “Constitutional rights must be respected for Dr Turabi and others.”
Turabi, once Beshir’s mentor but now one of his fiercest critics, denounced last month’s elections as fraudulent and said his party would not join a future government.
Beshir was declared winner with 68 percent of the vote in Sudan’s first multi-party polls since 1986 which were marred by an opposition boycott, logistical problems and accusations of fraud.
Turabi, an iconic Islamist leader who has frequently been arrested, was last detained in January 2009, two days after he urged Beshir to surrender to the International Criminal Court.
In March 2009, the court issued an arrest warrant for Beshir over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the war-torn western region of Darfur.
The seven-year conflict left 300,000 people dead, according to the United Nations. Khartoum says 10,000 were killed.

MADRID — Spain’s Supreme Court has removed the last potential obstacle to putting on trial the crusading judge who indicted Augusto Pinochet and Osama bin Laden.

Judge Baltasar Garzon, who became world famous with cross-border justice cases, faces charges of knowingly overstepping his jurisdiction by launching a probe of Spanish Civil War atrocities that were covered by an amnesty.

The Supreme Court judge who indicted him last month, Luciano Varela, issued a ruling Wednesday that rejected an appeal by prosecutors on procedural grounds.

The prosecutors actually oppose trying Garzon. His indictment stems from a complaint that were filed by two civil groups and accepted by Varela.

An official with a judicial oversight board said Garzon’s trial might start in two to three months, or perhaps as late as September.

On Tuesday Garzon asked for a leave of absence to accept a job offer at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

That might spare him the disgrace of being suspended from his post at the National Court, either when the trial starts or perhaps even earlier.

The oversight board, called the General Council of the Judiciary, was meeting Wednesday to discuss whether to grant Garzon a leave of absence.
In the event Garzon were suspended while waiting to transfer to The Hague, he would have to resign from his post at the National Court in order to take up that new job, the official with the oversight board said. He spoke on condition of anonymity in line with board rules.

Garzon was charged last month with knowingly overstepping the bounds of his jurisdiction by launching in 2008 a probe of the execution or disappearance of more than 100,000 civilians at the hands of supporters of
Gen. Francisco Franco during the 1936-39 war and in the early years of the Franco dictatorship.

Garzon denies any wrongdoing and says his probe was legitimate. If convicted, he faces removal from the National Court for up to 20 years.

Garzon is under investigation in two other cases as well: one involving money that a Spanish bank paid to sponsor human rights seminars he gave while on sabbatical in New York a few years ago, and another in connection with jailhouse wiretaps he ordered as part of a corruption probe.

source: Associated Press

Spain’s well-known investigating magistrate, Baltasar Garzón, left, who is being prosecuted in a case filed by far-right Spanish groups, has been offered a temporary post as an external adviser to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, a court official there said. The judge gained an international reputation as a fearless prosecutor of cases including those on Basque and Islamist terrorism, drug traffickers and the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Mr. Garzón was indicted last month on charges of abusing his powers. He has denied the charges.

source: NYTimes

The commander of Colombia’s armed forces says that the national justice system and not the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be responsible for prosecuting soldiers involved in “false positive” killings, in which the army murdered civilians and reported them as guerrillas killed in combat.

General Freddy Padilla said Colombian authorities are processing false positive cases effectively and there is no reason for an international court to interfere.

“How can we turn to international justice to help us clarify what happened in Colombia, when we have judges and lawyers known for their integrity,” Padilla said, adding that Colombia needs to have faith in its justice system, and support it.

Padilla spoke out in reaction to a request by the ICC Monday that Colombia give it access to all national reports related to the army’s extra-judicial killings.

The court, which already monitors “parapolitics,” cases in which politicians are linked with paramilitary groups, the Justice and Peace process and activities by illegal armed groups in Colombia, also expressed concern that soldiers arrested for their responsibility in false positives, have since been released.

Padilla reminded Colombians that the ICC only has jurisdiction to intervene in a nation’s justice when there is a failure by the state to bring war criminals, or those who have committed crimes against humanity, to justice - a fact that the court has stressed in the past.

source: Colombia Reports

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court said that his team would build their case independently in order to present impartial evidence to judges at The Hague.

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has arrived in Kenya to begin his investigation into crimes against humanity committed in the wake of a disputed presidential election.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo landed in the Kenyan capital Saturday morning for a much anticipated 5 day visit, during which he will gather evidence against suspected sponsors of the ethnic violence which gripped the East African nation in early 2008.

An estimated 1,000 people were killed and more than 300,000 displaced when supporters of President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga clashed in reaction to accusations of vote rigging by both parties during the December 2007 presidential election.

Limited mandate

In a press conference this morning, Moreno-Ocampo emphasized that his investigation would not cover the disputed election, explaining that his mandate was limited to crimes against humanity. He did, however, urge the Kenyan government to launch its own investigation into the poll, which he said would help ensure the credibility of the election in 2012. 

There has been wide speculation about who might be targeted by the investigations. An international commission established in 2008 to examine the causes of the post election crisis presented a sealed list to Moreno-Ocampo containing 20 prominent Kenyan businessmen and politicians which it believed had sponsored the violence.

The Prosecutor has invited Kenyans who believe they are on the list to clear their names, but stressed that the list would not influence his own probe.

Moreno-Ocampo said that his team would build their case independently in order to present impartial evidence to judges at The Hague.

“Crimes happened here. People were killed, there was rape, houses were burned; that happened,” said the ICC prosecutor. “There are some allegations someone was involved. For me, I have to start from scratch. I have to collect evidence defining who was criminally responsible. This is not about political parties, this is not about political responsibilities, this is about criminal responsibilities. That’s my job.”
Witness protection

During the press conference, the issue of witness protection was repeatedly raised. After the prosecutor announced his intention to pursue those responsible for the violence, witnesses around the country have been repeatedly harassed and intimidated both verbally and physically. Many have received death threats and a few have even gone into hiding.

Moreno-Ocampo estimated that he would select 30 witnesses for his case and affirmed the responsibility of the ICC to protect them. But the prosecutor said that he could only protect those witnesses which he selected and the responsibility fell to the Kenyan government to ensure the safety of the rest.

“We talk about this with the local authorities because it is their job,” he said. “They have responsibility to ensure security for the citizens in Kenya, so they have to protect these people. But I cannot replace the Kenyan government. I will not pretend that I would replace the Kenyan government.”

The prosecutor is expected to gather preliminary evidence in and around Nairobi over the next five days. The team of investigators will interview victims of the violence and speak with civil and religious leaders.

Moreno-Ocampo elected to pursue the perpetrators in 2009 in light of Kenya’s apparent failure to administer justice. The Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission was established in 2008 to investigate the violence, but allegations of ethical violations leveled at the chairman, Bethuel Kiplagat, have marred its credibility and effectively halted its work.

Moreno-Ocampo has indicated that his investigation will take around seven months after which he will issue warrants for suspects to be tried in The Hague. The Kenyan government has promised its full support.

source: VOA News

As International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo arrives in Kenya, a group of African States plans to petition the United Nations Security Council to defer the investigations until after the next General Election.

The 60 African lobbyists — who include academics, politicians and lawyers — plan a parallel meeting to an ICC Review Meeting scheduled for May 31 to June 11 in the Ugandan capital, Kampala.

The push to stop Moreno-Ocampo from pursuing post-election violence suspects has been met with stinging criticism from local human rights groups, who read desperate attempts by forces culpable in the violence that consumed the country in the aftermath of the highly disputed 2007 presidential elections.

African Union that has in the past two years been critical of Moreno-Ocampo since he slapped a warrant of arrest on Sudanese President Omar Hassan el Bashir, are pushing for a revision of Article 15 of the Rome Statute that bestows unlimited powers on the chief prosecutor to pursue leaders accused of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The anti-Moreno Ocampo campaign is being spearheaded by Sudan, which has rallied support from among others Kenya, Libya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Uganda, South Africa, DR Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Liberia Mozambique and Chad.

In Europe, former USSR and Czechoslovakia satellite states are rallying behind the lobby group.

Apart from the African World Media (AWM), a leading British lobby group, and American-based Witness Africa, are some of the organisations lining up to tell Ocampo to “give Kenya breathing space”.

Further, the group has drafted a petition it hopes to present to the UN Security Council on Wednesday to press for the deferment of the ICC investigations pending the conclusion of Agenda Item IV of the National Peace Accord signed under international pressure by President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga that ended post-election chaos in 2008.

Moreno-Ocampo arrives at a time when the referendum debate has elicited strong reactions from the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ camps, stoking fears of ethnic and political polarisation reminiscent of post-2007 General Election.

The leader of the group that convenes under the aegis AWM, Dr David Nyekorach-Matsanga, says ICC investigations of crimes against humanity carries with it a disruptive effect and has the potential to polarise the country further.

“We are wary of deadline politics in Africa. Crimes were committed in Kenya but this is not the time to engage in investigations that can rekindle the ethnic hostilities the resulted in post-election chaos. It is also important that the investigations be deferred pending the conclusion of constitutional, judicial, police and civil service reforms, which are on course,” Dr Matsanga told The Standard on Saturday.

However, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights Vice-Chairman Hassan Omar says the push to scuttle the ICC activities in Kenya would be resisted.

“There is obviously panic in Government because it is dominated by key suspects. ICC operations will move in any direction, including the Executive. The attempt to criticise the ICC or reduce the mandate of chief prosecutor is myopic as it cannot deflate the wheels of justice as they are catching up with people who planned and committed the crimes,” Omar, who will participate in ICC General Assembly meeting in Uganda, says.

This is not the first time that Matsanga wants Moreno-Ocampo tamed in the hunt for post-election suspects.

Perceived impunity

In February, a 12-page application was filed at the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II seeking the nullification of the international court’s effort to rein in perceived impunity in Kenya.

More significantly, the application filed soon after that of two Americans — Prof Max Hilaire and William A Cohn — failed to convince the international court to scupper investigations.

In the application, Matsanga argued: “Flawed application of Article 15 of the Rome Statute of 1998 is likely to lead to flawed justice for both the victims and the alleged key perpetrators of the post-election violence of 2007-2008 as well as lead to a cataclysmic politico-socio falling out across the country, with a dire consequences for Kenya.”

Moreno-Ocampo’s five-day visit to Kenya has apparently rekindled fears that the hunt for bearers of the greatest responsibility for alleged crimes against humanity would rope in the Executive, which a local commission of inquiry has blamed for occasioning post-election violence.

International Centre for Transitional Justice senior researcher and lawyer, Njonjo Mue, agrees the search for justice for post-election violence faces threats of being messed by politics.

But he says: “The victims of post-election violence have waited too long. The rules of procedure are such that the process cannot stall until the investigations are through. Ocampo is aware of this. The indictments can be open or sealed, so there should be no fear that investigations will affect constitutional reforms as ICC is not a political court,” says Mue.

University of Nairobi political science lecturer, Adams Oloo, shares the sentiments. But he cautioned: “Although the timelines of the referendum and ICC investigations are far apart, key suspects could use them as an excuse to mess up the democratic process. Ideally Moreno-Ocampo’s investigations could influence the 2012 elections.”

An ICC statement early in the week that Moreno-Ocampo’s investigations would, when necessary, be taken to the highest office on the land has intensified panic that had been on a lull since his departure in November.

The planned meeting is part of the pressure that is piling again from within and outside Kenya against ICC to frustrate the investigations pending the determination of Africa’s demand for the reduction of the chief prosecutor’s powers.

Agenda IV, an outcome of national reconciliation and peace talks, envisages constitutional, electoral and judicial reforms whose deadlines are defined by the timeframe provided in the National Accord.

Moreno-Ocampo touched off panic in the high echelons of the Government when he declared early in the week that his imminent investigations would not spare anybody irrespective of position in the Government.

source: The Standard

As predicted by Human Rights Watch Executive Director Ken Roth after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for sitting President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, a national leader being the target of an arrest warrant will have an isolating effect.  As recounted in this New York Times article by Marlise Simons, world leaders are assiduously avoiding al-Bashir at official meetings, making him a “persona non grata” on the international diplomatic scene. This is welcome news, and beyond isolating him will surely eventually weaken his hold on power in Sudan.  As ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo says at the end of documentary film “The Reckoning”, “someday there will be justice.”  And as the Prosecutor has also often said, al-Bashir’s destiny is to end up at The Hague.http://ijcentral.org/images/uploads/Bashir_alone.jpg

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA — Making war, traditionally a prerogative of presidents and princes, may soon become an international crime.

The states that have signed on to the International Criminal Court are on the cusp of adding “aggression” to that list of crimes that it is empowered to prosecute, alongside genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It would be a game-changer in international diplomacy, but it carries great risk along with its promise.

The idea of prosecuting a country’s leader for ordering a war that violates the United Nations Charter is appealing, until you imagine your own leader in the dock for a war that your countrymen all accepted as self-defense or humanitarian intervention. Just as one nation’s terrorist is another nation’s freedom fighter, one state’s just war is bound to be another state’s unjust war.

Nonetheless, after a decade of negotiations, and against all expectations, the Assembly of States Parties to the I.C.C. has produced a draft.

When asked, many diplomatic delegations explain the draft as the natural culmination of the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials, where Hermann Göring and other top Nazis were prosecuted by an international tribunal for planning, preparing, initiating and waging aggressive war against their neighbors.

The Nuremberg tribunal found Göring and 11 others guilty of what was then known as the “crime against peace,” famously declaring: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Unfortunately, plans by the newly formed United Nations to create an international criminal court with jurisdiction over aggression were sidelined during the Cold War because the United States and Soviet Union couldn’t agree on an enforceable definition.

Now that the Cold War is over, is the Nuremberg precedent still relevant?

The acts that amount to aggression in the I.C.C. definition are familiar to any student of World War II: invasion, bombardment, blockade, attacking the armed forces of another state, contravening an agreement to station forces in another state, allowing one’s territory to be used by another state to attack a third state, and the sending of armed bands. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 is a textbook act of aggression.

To be on the safe side, the drafters have deliberately defined aggression more narrowly than does customary international law. Under the I.C.C. definition, an enforceable crime of aggression would only capture the most egregious violations of the U.N. Charter, leaving out — to the consternation of many pacifists — leaders implicated in “gray-area” interventions. One example that many of the drafters had in mind was the NATO intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing by Slobodan Milosevic’s forces in Kosovo.

Still, skeptics abound. In a recent speech to the American Society of International Law, Harold Koh, the Yale Law School dean who is currently legal adviser to the U.S. State Department, said, “if you think of the [International Criminal] Court as a wobbly bicycle that is finally starting to move forward, is this frankly more weight than the bicycle can bear?” Koh’s concern is that adopting a definition of something as subjective as aggression could politicize and weaken the young institution.

Michael Glennon, professor of international law at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, warned on these pages (April 6) that implementing the definition will “bollix an international equilibrium that already is precarious enough.” His concern, which I share in part, is that criminal prosecution of aggression could serve to increase political tensions, harden positions and undermine alternative avenues to ending conflicts, such as negotiated solutions.

The drafters respond that there can be no sustainable peace while leaders such as Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir commit crimes against their own and neighboring populations with impunity. They point to peaceful transitions in Serbia and Liberia following the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor for other international crimes. The lesson they draw is that bullies should be politically isolated, arrested and held to account — not appeased.

The drafters reject as a false distinction Koh’s position that aggression is fundamentally different from the three currently enforceable I.C.C. crimes — genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes — because aggression is based on acts committed by a state while the others are crimes directed against particular individuals.

All four international crimes are collective acts of violence, they reply, attributable to political or military leaders against vulnerable individuals. In the case of aggression, the primary victims are the innocent people killed in a war that violates the U.N. Charter.

My hope, along with the drafters, is that individual criminal responsibility for the illegal use of armed force will make international law more credible and will supplant the existing system of collective guilt, whereby populations are sanctioned for the decisions of their delinquent leaders.

It was the Iraqi population, not Saddam’s inner circle, who really suffered under U.N. sanctions after Saddam illegally invaded Kuwait.

Criminal accountability will not end war, but it may change the broader rules of domestic and international politics so that war is no longer such a tempting option.

Had aggression been a prosecutable crime in 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair — who relied heavily on the legal advice of his attorney general — may have never brought his country to war in Iraq without a Security Council resolution authorizing him to do so.

Along with the skeptics, however, I’m wary of victor’s justice. It is one thing to prosecute a defeated warlord and quite another to arrest the victorious leader of a powerful and modern state. But even victors are liable to prosecution — witness Milosevic and Taylor.

The drafters’ challenge is to temper justice with prudence when they meet in Kampala in June to activate the crime.

A reasonable compromise, in my opinion, is to limit I.C.C. jurisdiction over aggression to states that sign on to the new prohibition, thereby creating a regime of states committed to the prosecution and enforcement of the crime.

What would be lost, at least in the short-term, is the notion of perfect justice universally applicable to political and military leaders worldwide. But what is gained is an incremental shift toward the rule of law in international affairs that may, over time, become the norm.

Noah Weisbord is a visiting assistant professor at Duke Law School and an independent expert on the working group charged by the I.C.C.’s Assembly of States Parties with drafting the crime of aggression.

source: New York Times

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called on every nation to become a party to the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court (ICC), stressing the vital role played by the institution in ending impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

“Only once every State has ratified the Rome Statute, and taken the necessary steps to make it enforceable at the national level, will there truly be no safe haven for those responsible for the most egregious crimes that can be committed against the core values of humankind,” Mr. Ban said in remarks at a panel discussion held at UN Headquarters.

“The ICC is the centrepiece of our system of international criminal justice,” he added. “To be successful, this system requires full support from the international community.”

Mr. Ban noted that universal ratification of the Rome Statute is one of the main challenges faced by the ICC, an independent, permanent court based in The Hague.

In this connection, he commended Slovakia on the role it is playing as facilitator for the plan of action for achieving universality and full implementation of the Rome Statute, as well as ICC President Judge Song Sang-Hyun for his outreach campaign.

With last month’s ratification of the Rome Statute by Bangladesh, this effort is now bearing fruit, the Secretary-General noted.

Mr. Ban said he will echo his call for universal ratification of the Rome Statute next month in Kampala, Uganda, when States parties meet to take stock of the Court’s achievements and to reflect on its future.

He pledged to do everything in his power to help the Review Conference produce a meaningful outcome, noting that the UN’s efforts to promote peace, development and human rights are closely linked to the work of the ICC.

“We need and want the Court to succeed,” he stated. “Our partnership is expanding, for example in the pursuit of justice in post-conflict societies. I am determined to push forward further still in our common fight to end impunity and strengthen accountability.”

source: UN News Centre

Whoops, spoke too soon about the WSJ’s anti-ICC editorial.  It does indeed contain a lie — and its a doozy:

What’s more, no amount of reform of the founding treaty will change the ICC’s inherent flaw. The ICC is a child of the doctrine of “universal jurisdiction,” which holds that courts can adjudicate crimes committed anywhere in the world.

As anyone who has spent five minutes reading the Rome Statue knows, the Court is based on two forms of jurisdiction: territorial and active-nationality.  Both of which the U.S. uses and accepts that other states may use.  Proposals to base the ICC on universal jurisdiction were soundly rejected during the drafting of the Rome Statute.
Not that the Editorial Board of the WSJ cares.  In the absence of facts, lies suit them just fine.

source: Opinio Juris