[ad_1]
After the hopes raised by the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it is time for disenchantment. Exactly 20 years ago, on 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute establishing this world tribunal to judge genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes was adopted. Four years later, the ICC saw the light of day, after 60 countries ratified it. Since then, the Hague judges have only sentenced eight convictions and two acquittals, including the resounding of the former Congolese warlord Jean-Pierre Bemba, on June 8, following errors made by the Trial Chamber.
"The ICC does not aim to have a lot of cases, but rather to encourage the national courts to do their job," says his spokesman, Fadi El Abdallah. US Attorney Reed Brody, a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch, says there is "an aspiration to legal perfection in The Hague. This is understandable because it is the world court and must embody the requirements of fair and transparent justice. But everything is hyper-debated and subject to almost infinite procedures! "
So far, only Africans have been prosecuted. The leaders of the continent have a good game to criticize a relentless neo-colonial hints. "It is very often at the request of the African States themselves that we seize a case," Fadi El Abdallah answers. For Reed Brody, "When the ICC first focused on rebels and mercenaries, it did not bother anyone, but as soon as it investigated executives in office, attempts were made to discredit them." distrust of the Court, however, seems circumscribed. In the last two years, four countries have called for their withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The one in Burundi is already effective and that in the Philippines will be in one year. On the other hand, the Gambia and South Africa, which had announced their withdrawal, have changed their minds.
Going beyond Africa
Be that as it may, Fatou Bensouda, the new prosecutor of the Court, seems have received the message. The Gambian has opened an investigation into the war in Georgia in 2008, in which Russia was involved. It is also investigating whether or not to open investigations in Afghanistan, including crimes committed by US forces, but also in Colombia, Venezuela, Palestine and other countries. Ukraine. Today, the jurisdiction of the Court extends to crimes committed in the 123 countries that have ratified the Rome Statute. The UN Security Council can also refer cases to the Court. But, as the great powers have a veto, these cases are hostage to political considerations.
The ICC is not close to addressing the war in Syria, despite its procession of atrocities, or the mass atrocities committed by the Burmese army against the Muslim Rohingya minority. "There is a lot of evidence, but the veto of Russia, ally of Damascus, and China, in the Security Council prevents any seizure of the ICC," says Bruno Stagno, deputy executive director of the Human Rights Watch NGO
Voices of Victims
The absence of major powers of the Rome Statute, such as Russia, China and the United States, is prejudicial. "These states want to maintain their legal supremacy," says Bruno Stagno. "If we look at the map of the world, countries that commit mass crimes are not members of the ICC," Reed Brody, who also quotes South Sudan, Iraq or Yemen, said.
lawyer is disappointed by the ICC for another reason. He imagined a trial "at Nuremberg with 20 or 30 defendants". On the contrary, "the ICC has instead chosen to attack isolated people, warlords, leaders but not the perpetrators of the crimes. The Bemba trial, for example, was the only really successful trial, but here it is! "A judgment that has already allowed him to run for the Congolese presidential election against Joseph Kabila. For Reed Brody, one of the main problems is the Court's lack of closeness. "The prosecutor's office has no accountability to the relevant civil society. The ICC should mobilize the victims of atrocities, gain their trust, because they are the largest and most legitimate allies of the court. Today, their voice is absent from the debates ", he regrets.
Source link
