December, 02 2010, 07:26am EDT
ICC: Keep Pledges to Strengthen International Justice
States Should Use Annual Session to Build on Kampala Conference
NEW YORK
Member states of the International Criminal Court (ICC) meeting for the first time since the ICC review conference in Kampala in May and June 2010, should make good on their promises to increase their commitment to international justice, Human Rights Watch said today.
Human Rights Watch called on governments to pay special attention to strengthening cooperation with the ICC and increasing assistance to national jurisdictions to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The annual session of the Assembly of States Parties will begin on December 6 at the United Nations headquarters in New York. The 114 member countries, including three new members, will take part.
"ICC members should build on the important foundation laid in Kampala," said Elizabeth Evenson, senior international justice counsel at Human Rights Watch. "This meeting of states parties is the time for governments to take new concrete action to ensure that those responsible for the worst international crimes face justice."
The review conference in Kampala was mandated under the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the court. The conference was required seven years after the statute went into effect in 2002 to consider amendments to the treaty.
The ICC relies on governments to enforce its decisions and assist its investigations and prosecutions. A backlash over the court's arrest warrants for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan has underscored the importance of strong public backing for the court's mandate, Human Rights Watch said. Human Rights Watch called on member states to bolster their joint efforts to secure cooperation by creating a permanent working group on cooperation within the Assembly of States Parties and by appointing a facilitator to increase expressions of commitment to the ICC's mandate in UN debates.
"ICC member states should redouble their efforts to support the ICC and one another in their cooperation with the court in the face of continued opposition by al-Bashir and his allies," Evenson said. "They should equip themselves to make the most of opportunities that arise at the UN General Assembly and Security Council year-round."
The ICC should also increase its engagement with the African Union, and member states should make sure that happens, Human Rights Watch said.
At the review conference, nearly 40 countries made specific pledges of concrete, increased assistance to the court. Human Rights Watch urged governments to report on progress in carrying out these pledges and to make new pledges of support during the December meeting.
Human Rights Watch also urged governments to strengthen the Assembly of States Parties' capacity to promote joint efforts to improve national-level trials of ICC crimes. The ICC only acts in cases in which national courts are unable or unwilling to hold credible trials at home, and its reach is limited to a handful of cases. The central role of national courts in holding all perpetrators of the worst international crimes to account received heightened attention in discussions at Kampala.
"ICC members recognize that impunity for the worst crimes must also be fought at the national level, including by increasing assistance to give national courts the resources they need for the task," Evenson said. "To make this happen, the Assembly of States Parties should forge new relationships between the ICC and development assistance programs."
Member states will also set the ICC's annual budget. Economic pressure on national budgets appears to be fuelling an interest by member governments in more robust oversight of the court. Another factor may be delays in judicial proceedings, including a recent stay in the first ICC trial, that of Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese rebel leader. The Lubanga trial resumed last month, and the ICC has recently started its third trial, that of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, a Congolese former vice president, rebel leader, and opposition party leader, on charges of crimes committed in neighboring Central African Republic.
The upcoming assembly session is expected to establish a study group of member states to examine issues related to the court's functioning. Human Rights Watch recognizes a critical role for member states in engaging court officials in strategic dialogue, but called on the assembly to ensure scrupulous respect for the court's independence as a judicial institution.
In a memorandum issued to governments last month, Human Rights Watch called attention to other issues likely to be discussed. These include the need to prepare for the election of only the most highly qualified candidates for ICC judges and the next ICC prosecutor, in voting to be held in 2011 or early 2012. Another is the need for safeguards to prevent politically motivated interference with the work of an ICC independent oversight mechanism.
Background
The ICC is the world's first permanent court mandated to bring to justice perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. The ICC treaty, the Rome Statute, entered into force in 2002, just four years after 120 states adopted the treaty during a conference in Rome.
The Assembly of States Parties was created by the Rome Statute to provide management oversight of the administration of the court. It consists of representatives of each member state and is required to meet at least once a year but can meet more often as required.
This year's annual session follows the first ICC review conference, held in Kampala, Uganda from May 31 to June 11. The Rome Statute mandates that seven years after the treaty enters into force, the UN secretary-general is to convene a review conference to consider any amendments to the treaty.
In addition to adopting two amendments - including one regarding the definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the crime -
member states attending the review conference engaged in two days of debate on cooperation, complementarity (or the strengthening of national jurisdictions to prosecute ICC crimes), the impact of the Rome Statute system on victims and affected communities, and peace and justice, as part of a "stock-taking" exercise.
The court's jurisdiction may be triggered in one of three ways. ICC member states or the UN Security Council may refer a situation, meaning a specific set of events, to the ICC prosecutor, or the ICC prosecutor may seek on his own motion authorization by a pre-trial chamber of ICC judges to open an investigation.
The ICC prosecutor has opened investigations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, northern Uganda, the Darfur region of Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Kenya. Based on those investigations, 13 arrest warrants and one summons to appear have been issued. The prosecutor has announced that he plans to present cases against six individuals in the Kenya investigation to an ICC pretrial chamber later this month.
The prosecutor is also looking at a number of other situations in countries around the world. These include Colombia, Georgia, Cote d'Ivoire, Afghanistan, and Guinea. The Palestinian National Authority has also petitioned the ICC prosecutor to accept jurisdiction over crimes committed in Gaza.
Four individuals are in ICC custody in The Hague. Three others charged with war crimes in connection with an attack on African Union peacekeepers in Darfur appeared voluntarily during pretrial proceedings. The ICC's pretrial chamber declined to confirm charges against one of the three, Bahr Idriss Abu Garda. A pretrial chamber will begin a hearing on December 8 to confirm charges against the other two - Abdallah Banda Abakaer and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamuson.
Bemba is the highest-profile defendant to date. Trial of the Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is ongoing, as is the joint trial of Congolese rebel leaders Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui.
In addition to al-Bashir and two other individuals sought in relation to the Darfur situation, arrest warrants remain outstanding for leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda and for Bosco Ntaganda, a former rebel commander now integrated into the Congolese national army.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Wyden Says Spying Bill Would Force Americans to Become an 'Agent for Big Brother'
"If you have access to any communications, the government can force you to help it spy," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Apr 17, 2024
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden took to the floor of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday to speak out against a chilling mass surveillance bill that lawmakers are working to rush through the upper chamber and send to President Joe Biden's desk by the end of the week.
The measure in question would reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for two years and massively expand the federal government's warrantless surveillance power by requiring a wide range of businesses and individuals to cooperate with spying efforts.
"If you have access to any communications, the government can force you to help it spy," said Wyden (Ore.), referring to an amendment that was tacked on to the legislation by the U.S. House last week with bipartisan support. "That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a Wi-Fi router, a phone, or a computer. So think for a moment about the millions of Americans who work in buildings and offices in which communications are stored or pass through."
"After all, every office building in America has data cables running through it," the senator continued. "The people are not just the engineers who install, maintain, and repair our communications infrastructure; there are countless others who could be forced to help the government spy, including those who clean offices and guard buildings. If this provision is enacted, the government can deputize any of these people against their will, and force them in effect to become what amounts to an agent for Big Brother—for example, by forcing an employee to insert a USB thumb drive into a server at an office they clean or guard at night."
Wyden said the process "can all happen without any oversight whatsoever: The FISA Court won't know about it, Congress won't know about it. Americans who are handed these directives will be forbidden from talking about it. Unless they can afford high-priced lawyers with security clearances who know their way around the FISA Court, they will have no recourse at all."
Wyden's remarks came after the Senate narrowly approved a motion Tuesday to proceed to the FISA reauthorization bill ahead of Section 702's expiration at the end of the week. The Oregon senator, an outspoken privacy advocate, was among the seven members of the Democratic caucus who voted against the procedural motion.
Despite its grave implications for civil liberties, the bill has drawn relatively little vocal opposition in the Senate. A final vote could come as soon as Thursday.
Titled Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), the legislation passed the Republican-controlled House last week after lawmakers voted down an amendment that would have added a search warrant requirement to Section 702.
The authority allows U.S. agencies to spy on non-citizens located outside of the country, but it has been abused extensively by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency to collect the communications of American lawmakers, activists, journalists, and others without a warrant.
Privacy advocates warn RISAA would dramatically expand the scope of Section 702 by broadening the kinds of individuals and businesses required to participate in government spying. A key provision of the bill would mandate cooperation from "electronic communications service providers" such as Google, Verizon, and AT&T as well as "any other service provider who has access to equipment that is being or may be used" to transmit or store electronic communications.
That would mean U.S. intelligence agencies could, without a warrant, compel gyms, grocery stores, barber shops, and other businesses to hand over communications data.
"In the face of the pervasive past misuse of Section 702, the last thing Americans need is a large expansion of government surveillance," Caitlin Vogus, deputy director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian on Tuesday. "The Senate should reject the House bill and refuse to reauthorize Section 702 without a warrant requirement. Lawmakers must demand reforms to put a stop to unjustified government spying on Americans."
Wyden said during his floor speech Tuesday that some of his colleagues "say they aren't worried about President Biden abusing these authorities."
"In that case, how about [former President Donald] Trump? Imagine these authorities in his hands," said Wyden. "If you're worried about having a president who lives to target vulnerable Americans, to pit Americans against each other, to find every conceivable way to punish perceived enemies, you ought to find this bill terrifying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Voice 'Deep Concern' Over Biden Claim That Israel Is Legally Using US Arms
A letter from 26 lawmakers notes the "stark differences and gaps" between what Biden administration officials say and the opinions of "prominent experts and global institutions" accusing Israel of genocide.
Apr 16, 2024
More than two dozen House Democrats on Tuesday challenged the Biden administration's claim that Israel is using U.S.-supplied weapons in compliance with domestic and international law—an assertion made amid an ongoing World Court probe of "plausibly" genocidal Israeli policies and practices in Gaza.
Citing "mounting credible and deeply troubling reports and allegations" of human rights crimes committed by Israeli troops in Gaza and soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank, 26 congressional Democrats led by Texas Reps. Veronica Escobar—who co-chairs President Joe Biden's reelection campaign—and Joaquin Castro asked U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines "whether and how" their agencies determined Israel is lawfully using arms provided by Washington.
"We write to express our deep concern regarding the U.S. Department of State's recent comments regarding assurances from the Israeli government, under National Security Memorandum (NSM) 20, that the Israeli government is using U.S.-origin weapons in full compliance with relevant U.S. and international law and is not restricting the delivery of humanitarian assistance," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the Cabinet members.
The letter acknowledges the "grave concerns" of institutions and experts around the world regarding Israel's "conduct throughout the war in Gaza, its policies regarding civilian harm and military targeting, unauthorized expansion of settlements and settler violence in the West Bank, and potential use of U.S. arms by settlers, in additional to limitations on humanitarian aid supported by the U.S."
The legislators noted Israeli attacks on aid convoys, workers, and recipients—like the February 29 "
Flour Massacre" in which nearly 900 starving Palestinians were killed or wounded at a food distribution site—and "the closure of vital border crossings" as Gazan children starve to death as causes for serious concern.
While the lawmakers didn't mention the International Court of Justice's January 26
preliminary finding that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza, their letter highlights the "stark differences and gaps in the statements" made by Biden administration officials and "those made by prominent experts and global institutions"—many of whom accuse Israel of genocide.
The lawmakers' letter came amid reports of fresh Israeli atrocities, including a drone strike on a playground in the Maghazi refugee camp in northern Gaza that killed at least 11 children. Eyewitnesses described a "horrific scene of children torn apart."
While Biden has called out Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" in Gaza—much of it carried out using U.S.-supplied warplanes and munitions including 2,000-pound bombs that can level whole city blocks—his administration has approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel, has repeatedly sidestepped Congress to fast-track emergency armed aid, and is seeking to provide the key ally with billions of dollars in addition weaponry atop the nearly $4 billion it gets annually from Washington.
This, despite multiple federal laws—and the administration's own rules— prohibiting U.S. arms transfers to human rights violators.
According to Palestinian and international officials, more than 110,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 7. Most of the dead are women and children. At least 7,000 Palestinians are also missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out homes and other buildings.
Around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people have been forcibly displaced in what many Palestinians are calling a second Nakba, a reference to the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
A growing number of not only progressive lawmakers but also mainstream Democrats are calling for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel.
On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who was criticized earlier in the war for not calling for a cease-fire—stood beside a photo of a starving Gazan girl while declaring "no more money for" the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his "war machine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Weasel Words': Julian Assange's Wife Slams US Assurances to UK
"The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future—his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism."
Apr 16, 2024
The wife of jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sharply criticized "assurances" the U.S. government made as the U.K. High Court considers allowing the 52-year-old Australian's extradition to the United States, where he faces 175 years in prison.
The U.S. document states that if extradited, "Assange will have the ability to raise and seek to rely upon at trial (which includes any sentencing hearing) the rights and protections given under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," though it points out that "a decision as to the applicability of the First Amendment is exclusively within the purview of the U.S. courts."
"A sentence of death will neither be sought nor imposed on Assange," the document adds, noting that he has not been charged with any offense for which that is a possible punishment. It comes after the U.K. court ruled last month that the Biden administration had until Tuesday to confirm that he wouldn't face the death penalty and if it did not, he could continue appealing his extradition.
Responding on social media, his wife, Stella Assange—who is an attorney—blasted the U.S. assurances as "weasel words."
"The United States has issued a nonassurance in relation to the First Amendment, and a standard assurance in relation to the death penalty," she said. "It makes no undertaking to withdraw the prosecution's previous assertion that Julian has no First Amendment rights because he is not a U.S citizen."
"The Biden administration must drop this dangerous prosecution before it is too late."
"Instead, the U.S. has limited itself to blatant weasel words claiming that Julian can 'seek to raise' the First Amendment if extradited," she added. "The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future—his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism. The Biden administration must drop this dangerous prosecution before it is too late."
The U.K. court's next hearing is scheduled for May 20. Last week, reporters asked U.S. President Joe Biden about requests from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and members of the country's Parliament to drop the extradition effort and charges. He said that "we're considering it."
So far, the Biden administration has ignored significant pressure from Australian and U.S. politicians as well as human rights and press freedom groups, and continued to pursue the extradition of Julian Assange, who was charged under former President Donald Trump—the Republican expected to face the Democratic president in the November election.
Assange was charged under the Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for publishing classified documents including the "Collateral Murder" video and the Afghan and Iraq war logs. Since British authorities dragged Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London—where he lived with political asylum for seven years—he has been jailed in the city's Belmarsh Prison.
The WikiLeaks founder's wife, with whom he has two children, was not alone in condemning the U.S. assurances on Tuesday.
"This 'assurance' should make journalists even more worried about how the Assange prosecution could impact press freedom in the U.S. and globally. The U.K. should grant Assange's appeal and refuse to extradite him," said the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "The U.S. doesn't disclaim the ability to argue that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Assange because of his nationality or other reasons, or for a court to rule against a First Amendment challenge to his prosecution."
Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, similarly said that "no one who cares about press freedom should take any comfort at all from the United States' assurance that Assange will be permitted to 'rely upon' the First Amendment."
"If the prosecution goes forward, the U.S. government will be trying to persuade American courts that the First Amendment poses no bar to the prosecution of a publisher under the Espionage Act," Jaffer warned. "And if the government is successful, no journalist will ever again be able to publish U.S. government secrets without risking her liberty."
"So the government's First Amendment assurances aren't responsive at all to the concerns that press freedom advocates have been raising," he concluded. "This case poses essentially the same threat to press freedom today as it did yesterday."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular