A Missed Trial or a Mistrial? The End of the ICC Cases against Ruto and Sang

William Ruto received a string of congratulatory phone calls after the ICC Judges made their ruling (Photo: DPPS)

William Ruto received a string of congratulatory phone calls after the ICC Judges made their ruling (Photo: DPPS)

It’s over. Almost six years after the International Criminal Court (ICC) intervened to investigate those responsible for the 2007-08 post-election violence in Kenya, everyone of the Court’s targets has escaped judgement day. What started out as the “Ocampo Six” — a reference to the ICC’s first chief prosecutor and the six individuals he targeted for crimes against humanity — is now the “Ocampo Zero”. This afternoon, in a much anticipated decision, ICC Judges “terminated” the case of Deputy President William Ruto and his co-accused, journalist Joshua Arap Sang. They join others, most notably Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, in being freed from their trial in The Hague. The ruling brings to an end a gruelling, dramatic, and controversial epoch in the Court’s history. Here are a few thoughts on what the ruling could mean going forward.

Witness Intimidation and Prospects for a Re-Prosecution?

In the opinion of presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji, the case was a mistrial (the first such ruling in the ICC’s history). Eboe-Osuji concluded that a mistrial had to be declared “due to a troubling incidence of witness interference and intolerable political meddling.” This is somewhat of a peculiar view. The defendants got something that they desperately wanted (the end of their trial) but for reasons they couldn’t possibly agree with (that Kenyan operatives intimidated witnesses and interfered with the trial on their behalf). In other words, Eboe-Osuji rather curiously blamed the political forces behind the defendants for a mistrial which ultimately benefits them and sets them free.

But that isn’t the whole story. Sang and Ruto’s defence counsel had actually hoped for something more than a mistrial or termination of the case. They had sought a positive ruling with regards to their no-case-to-answer motion. Had they received that, neither Sang nor Ruto could be re-prosecuted in the future at the ICC. A mistrial, however, permits prosecutors to re-open the case in the future if new — and better — evidence comes to light.

At the moment, it is hard to imagine such a re-trial happening. But it may not be entirely impossible down the road if the Court’s prosecutors manage to prove that there has actually been witness tampering. There are currently three live warrants of arrest that have been issued for Kenyan nationals for what amount to allegations of obstructing justice at the ICC by intimidating and interfering with witnesses. These individuals — Walter Barasa, Paul Gicheru, and Philip Kipkoech Bett — remain in legal limbo as Kenya mulls whether it will surrender them to the ICC. But it is now up to prosecutors to prove these allegations of witness tampering. If they can do that, it could potentially help them (re)build cases and to eventually re-prosecute some of the alleged senior perpetrators of the post-election violence.

No Prospects for Domestic Justice

Make no mistake about it — the Kenya cases at the ICC stopped being about justice a long time ago. The ICC-Kenya debacle is a story about a state and government against an international court and institution. It has been a narrative about a whole bunch of things — politics, colonialism, power, diplomacy, money, reputation, messaging, etc. But it is genuinely difficult to remember a time when it was about achieving justice for the victims of post-election violence. If it had been, the government of Kenya could have simply demonstrated that it was prepared to take accountability — any accountability — for post-election violence seriously. It hasn’t and it likely won’t. Continue reading →

Posted in International and Organized Crimes Division of Kenya, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, Kenya, Kenya and the ICC | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Mass Atrocity Monday, 4/4/2016: The Ethiopian Red Terror

Photo of the Derg leaders, via Wikipedia

Photo of the Derg leaders, via Wikipedia

You’d be forgiven for not knowing that in 1992, Ethiopia’s transitional government established a Special Prosecutor’s Office to investigate and try members of the military junta it had toppled. Or that over the course of 14 years, the Red Terror trials (as they were known) led to the convictions of more than 1,000 individuals, including 55 high-level regime officials. Or that the Derg’s leader, Mengistu Hailemariam, was convicted on genocide charges in absentia and sentenced to death (on appeal) in 2008.

Despite the scale and scope of these trials, Ethiopia barely figures in the transitional justice literature. But it should. Not only is it a rare early (and African!) example of a fully domestic program of prosecutions for international crimes, it highlights many of the challenges of pursuing justice in a society gutted by decades of massive human rights violations and struggling to form functional institutions.

Here are some details:

The Derg seized power in the confusion following the 1974 overthrow of Ethiopia’s monarchy. They quickly launched a program of harsh reprisals against those associated with the imperial regime. Hundreds were arrested and 60 former officials were summarily executed without trial. The deposed Emperor himself was quietly murdered and buried under the floor of his former palace. But there was far worse to come.

In 1977, when the youth committees of the leftist Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP) organized a protest calling for civilian rule, the Derg cracked down. In the “May Day Massacre” and its immediate aftermath, over a thousand young people were gunned down; many of them left lying in the streets. The regime famously required family members collecting their corpses to pay for the bullets used to kill them.

The May Day Massacre was only the beginning—what one historian describes as “the dress rehearsal” for the bloodshed that followed. The Red Terror began as a systematic attempt to wipe out threats to the regime, and ended in chaos. The agents of the campaign were unfettered in their mandate to liquidate members of the EPRP and its leftist rival Ma’ison. Local-level revolutionary defense squads were given carte blanche to kill anyone suspected of anti-regime sentiments. No one was safe.

The Red Terror’s death toll is still uncertain. It’s clear that by 1980, tens of thousands were dead or disappeared, and countless others were imprisoned. Credible estimates go as high as half a million dead, and experts on the era speak of a “lost generation” of Ethiopians.

The Derg finally collapsed in 1991, overthrown by a coalition of rebel forces called the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). The transitional government faced the challenge of reconstituting the Ethiopian state after decades of brutal authoritarian rule and internal conflict.

The decision to institute a program of mass prosecutions was not an obvious one in the early 1990s. The international criminal tribunals were not yet established, and relevant precedents from other domestic jurisdictions were few and far between. (Very few. Argentina, Greece, and Nicaragua had all tried past regime leaders on purely domestic charges, and Bangladesh had legislated, but never created, an International Crimes Tribunal.)

The choice of a criminal justice approach perhaps reflects the need Ethiopia’s new leaders felt to both signal a sharp break with the past and put the Derg firmly beyond the pale. Although the regime had committed massive and systematic atrocities, they were not the only actors guilty of human rights violations over the course of 17 years of competing and overlapping rebellions and counter-insurgencies. Widespread participation in violence and abuses had created resentments that could tear the new political order apart. One of the most urgent tasks was therefore to “establish a common and uniform interpretation of the Derg era, by fixing memory and institutionalizing a view of the past conflict“, a priority expressed in the limitation of the Special Prosecutor’s mandate to regime crimes.

Along with the sensitive political context, the Red Terror trials faced a number of difficulties that are common to transitional settings: the lack of resources to pursue trials in a speedy manner, the absence of a skilled judiciary following lustration of Derg officials, and the evidentiary challenges of investigating atrocities many years after the fact. Nevertheless, they ground on for nearly a decade and a half, with almost no attention or assistance from the international community. They’re overdue for a look.

 

 

Posted in Mass Atrocity Monday | 1 Comment

Is the South African Government an Accessory to Genocide in Darfur?

(Cartoon: Justice Hub)

The Government of South Africa continues to be bombarded with criticism regarding its handling of a visit last summer by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who faces war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his alleged responsibility for atrocities committed in Darfur. Two weeks ago, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the government had broken the law in not arresting and surrendering Bashir to the ICC as well as allowing him to leave the country despite a order issued a domestic court to prohibit his departure. It was a significant blow for the government. And the blows keep coming.

This week, Thuli Madonsela, South Africa’s Public Prosecutor insisted that, even though Bashir was allowed to leave the country in defiance of court orders, the strength of South Africa’s rule of law ensured that he had to sneak out “like a little criminal”. Then, in a belated review of South Africa’s human rights record, the United Nations Human Rights Committee continued to pile-on. In its report, the Committee observed that the failure of South African authorities to detain and surrender Bashir was “inconsistent with the Constitution” and that Bashir’s ability to leave the country came “in violation of an interim Court order”. It added that South Africa “should continue its investigation of the events surrounding the failure to comply with the interim Court order on President Al-Bashir and take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with rulings of domestic courts, including in cases relating to the State party’s international treaty obligations.”

Such determinations and rulings are undoubtedly important. But what may, on first glance, seem to be a legal battle that will keep lawyers and advocates employed, literally as well as in argument, for years to come, also has the potential to morph into a criminal matter. While it hasn’t received significant attention outside of the country, the potential for criminal charges being laid has been intimated in all of the rulings of South African courts on the matter. Allowing Bashir to leave in violation of a court order explicitly prohibiting his departure may lead to criminal proceedings levied against those responsible. And that’s not all…

There is also an argument that members of the South African government who had been closely involved in assisting Bashir escape South Africa in the face of the existing court order by the Pretoria High Court (and the warrants of arrest issued by the ICC) might be considered as accessories after the fact to genocide.

Continue reading →

Posted in Afghanistan, Darfur, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, Omar al-Bashir, South Africa | Tagged | 7 Comments

Justice in Conflict – The Book (and a Plan to ‘Give Research Back’)!

Justice in Conflict - The Book!

Justice in Conflict – The Book!

I could not be more excited to announce the publication of my book, Justice in Conflict The Effects of the International Criminal Court’s Interventions on Ending Wars and Building Peace. The book explores many of the same themes as the blog, namely the politics of international criminal justice and the effects of the International Criminal Court on conflict, peace, justice processes. It is both a response and a challenge to the ‘peace versus justice’ debate that readers are very familiar with. Here’s a brief description:

What happens when the international community simultaneously pursues peace and justice in response to ongoing conflicts? What are the effects of interventions by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the wars in which the institution intervenes? Is holding perpetrators of mass atrocities accountable a help or hindrance to conflict resolution? This book offers an in-depth examination of the effects of interventions by the ICC on peace, justice and conflict processes. The ‘peace versus justice’ debate, wherein it is argued that the ICC has either positive or negative effects on ‘peace’, has spawned in response to the Court’s propensity to intervene in conflicts as they still rage. This book is a response to, and a critical engagement with, this debate.

Building on theoretical and analytical insights from the fields of conflict and peace studies, conflict resolution, and negotiation theory, the book develops a novel analytical framework to study the Court’s effects on peace, justice, and conflict processes. This framework is applied to two cases: Libya and northern Uganda. Drawing on extensive fieldwork, the core of the book examines the empirical effects of the ICC on each case. The book also examines why the ICC has the effects that it does, delineating the relationship between the interests of states that refer situations to the Court and the ICC’s institutional interests, arguing that the negotiation of these interests determines which side of a conflict the ICC targets and thus its effects on peace, justice, and conflict processes.

While the effects of the ICC’s interventions are ultimately and inevitably mixed, the book makes a unique contribution to the empirical record on ICC interventions and presents a novel and sophisticated means of studying, analyzing, and understanding the effects of the Court’s interventions in Libya, northern Uganda – and beyond.

The book is available for advance purchase in both hardcover and softcover and will be officially published mid-June.

The book owes many people many thanks. But I wanted to stress here that I have been particularly fortunate to have worked with a wonderful group of people at Oxford University Press (OUP). Working with Merel Alstein, Nicole Leyland and their team was an immense pleasure. They were not only patient but gracious and genuinely excited about the project throughout the editing and publication period. They also allowed me to imagine and design the cover with their visual design team (so be sure to blame my aesthetic if you’re not a fan!). Most importantly, OUP has agreed to make up to 200 copies of the book available, with all royalties I earn from sales of the book being used to pay for those copies to be shipped to libraries and universities across Africa, especially to those in ICC-affected countries. This reflects our shared conviction that it is our duty not only to take research out of conflict and post-conflict societies where we conduct research, but to give something back.

I recognize that this is a bit of shameless self-promotion but I hope that some readers will find the book to be of interest. Thank you, again, to the wonderful people at OUP. And as always, I look forward to your feedback!

Posted in JiC News, Justice in Conflict | 5 Comments

David beats Goliath in the Bashir case, but does the International Community give a Hoot?

(Cartoon image: CICC)

The campaign against Omar al-Bashir racked up an impressive win this week. In the latest development in an ongoing legal tug-of-war, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the government of South Africa had acted unlawfully when it refused to detain and surrender Bashir to the International Criminal Court (ICC) during a visit to the country last June. The landmark ruling clarifies the legal obligations that states have towards the ICC and could have significant repercussions beyond South Africa. But will this impressive victory bring Bashir any closer to facing justice for his alleged responsibility for mass atrocities in Darfur?

Just days before the Supreme Court of Appeal’s ruling, Bashir made yet another state visit, this time to Indonesia. Coinciding with the seventh anniversary of the first arrest warrant issued by the ICC for the Sudanese president, Bashir’s trip to Jakarta also marked his seventy-fifth foreign foray since he was indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bashir’s gallivanting undermines one of the key arguments in favour of international criminal justice: that ICC arrest warrants marginalise their targets. But what is particularly irritating for proponents of the ICC is the international community’s deafening indifference to Bashir’s increasingly brazen travels in contravention of the ICC’s warrants.

The failure to arrest al-Bashir and his absence from the ICC’s dock has been one of the most stinging and substantial critiques facing the ICC. Importantly, however, this logic assumes that the Court is actually prepared to put Bashir on trial on genocide allegations — an assumption that is far from evident. Indeed, no one can know right now that the Bashir case would not go the way of the trial of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, which collapsed due to a combination of political pressure, interference with witnesses and poor case construction on the part of prosecutors at the ICC. Given that the case against Bashir was built prior to Kenyatta and that not a single staff member, let alone ICC investigator, has stepped foot on the territory of Darfur in the ten-plus years since the situation there was referred to the Court by the UN Security Council, it is at least worth being somewhat skeptical that nabbing Bashir would be an immediate and easy victory for the ICC.

What truly undermines the legitimacy and relevancy of the ICC isn’t the fact that Bashir isn’t in the dock, but the fact that states are increasingly silent with regards to justice and Bashir’s responsibility for mass atrocities in Darfur. Beyond commentators and human rights groups, few members of the international community insisted that Bashir had to be arrested by South African authorities. And none will now line up to praise or support the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgement or its ramifications. In response to Bashir’s trip to Indonesia, the international community was again eerily quiet. The United States, a long-time champion of justice in Darfur, simply said that it was “concerned” about Bashir’s visit. The Sudanese Embassy in Jakarta’s terse reply that the US should either join the ICC or “shut up” really wasn’t necessary given the meek response of Washington to Bashir’s trip. But here is the inescapable, if sad, truth: whatever it was that used to bother states like South Africa and Indonesia enough to reject Bashir from travelling to their capitals, no longer does. Worse than states wanting Bashir to visit is the reality that states simply no longer mind if he does. Continue reading →

Posted in Darfur, International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, South Africa, Sudan | 3 Comments

‘Contested Justice’: A New Appraisal of the International Criminal Court

Christian Lance-De Vos and Sara Kendall join JiC for this announcement of their new and timely edited volume, ‘Contested Justice The Politics and Practice of International Criminal Court Interventions’. The book can now be purchased in hard-cover and is also available in open-access format here.

Contested Justice

Contested Justice

Since its inception, the International Criminal Court has faced a host of challenges, ranging from vexed questions about the role and place of victims and affected communities in the Court’s work to continued criticism that it is a neo-colonial project targeting African states. The Court’s interventions have also raised questions about the social value of its interventions, as well as their political dimensions and effects. The ICC’s troubled engagements in countries like Kenya and Libya, as well as its more recent geographic turn to such post-Soviet states as Ukraine and Georgia, make these issues more urgent than ever.

A new volume recently published by Cambridge University Press promises to contribute a set of fresh and provocative perspectives to these debates. Contested Justice: the Politics and Practice of International Criminal Court Interventions evaluates the ICC’s work from a critical and interdisciplinary perspective, bringing together a diverse group of contributions from scholars and practitioners. Edited by Christian De Vos of the Open Society Justice Initiative, Sara Kendall of the University of Kent, and Carsten Stahn of Leiden University, the collection is the first book of its kind to consider the ICC’s in-country work in such detail, including perspectives from those who have been working alongside the Court in Uganda, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The book is organised into four sections, each with distinct themes. It first considers the relationship between international criminal law and transitional justice, exploring how the ICC’s constituency/ies, claims of neo-colonialism, and the possibilities opened through the Rome Statute’s ‘in the interests of justice’ criterion offer a way in which to tailor Court interventions to specific contexts, and to open up a space of discretion for more locally based understandings of justice.

The book’s second section is grounded in practice and case studies, examining how the ICC has been received in the countries where it has intervened. Contributors consider the role of complementarity in Uganda, prosecutions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the work of civil society actors in Kenya, and the Court’s fraught relationship with intermediaries in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The third section then turns to practices of inclusion and exclusion within the Court, touching on a range of related themes: outreach, victim participation, reparations, and the role of the Trust Fund for Victims. Continue reading →

Posted in International Criminal Court (ICC), JiC News | 1 Comment

Mass Atrocity Monday, 3/7/2016: The 1961 Paris Massacre

DSC_0072

The Seine. Photo credit: Terrence Peterson

Did you know that in 1961, French police massacred more than 100 Algerians as they demonstrated peacefully in the center of Paris?

If you didn’t, it’s not surprising. Even in France, the event has been obscured by decades of official silence. It doesn’t appear in history books and the exact death toll remains uncertain.

The facts, as we know them, are these: On October 5, 1961, following attacks on the Paris police by FLN separatists, a curfew was imposed on North Africans living in the city and its suburbs. When some 40,000 protesters poured into the streets on October 17, the police cracked down. Their chief, Maurice Papon (note: Papon was later convicted of crimes against humanity for his role in the Vichy government’s deportation of Jews to concentration camps during WWII) allegedly ordered his men to take brutal measures. At least 100 people were slaughtered; shot to death in the streets of central Paris, tortured and killed in the courtyard of the police prefecture, or pushed into the Seine to drown.

And then, for decades, no one spoke about their deaths. It was 51 years before the French government formally acknowledged the massacre. But in the aftermath of the November 2015 Paris attacks, many are looking back to 1961, the last time France imposed a state of emergency.

To get some context, I turned to Terrence Peterson, a historian (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin 2015) and expert on the French war in Algeria.  Terry’s book project, Keeping Algeria French: Counterinsurgency, Development, and Colonial Utopianism, 1955-1962, explores and contextualizes French efforts to remake Algerians in the image of Frenchmen. He’s therefore the perfect person to talk to about this (and his office is conveniently right next door to mine at CISAC). Here is our conversation, edited for length and clarity:

KCF: First of all, why is this massacre relatively unknown? 

TP: Perhaps the most important reason why the massacre remained so shrouded in mystery for so long was simply the French government’s refusal to talk about it. The Parisian press covered the events, and the National Liberation Front (FLN) which was fighting for Algerian independence certainly made efforts to publicize the violence. But French administrators categorically denied the massacre had taken place, and they kept archives related to the matter locked down. The number of Algerians killed is still uncertain for that very reason.

KCF: So how do we know about it at all, then? 

TP: It wasn’t until a historian named Jean Luc Einaudi published the first really in-depth investigation of events in 1991 that the public really became aware of events.  And even then, public awareness was highly politicized: debate really began in earnest in 1999, only after Maurice Papon sued Einaudi for libel. After that, 17 October became a potent symbol for state violence against Algerians, but because of that it has remained a really sensitive topic.

KCF: Was the massacre a one-off event, or is it indicative of a broader pattern of treatment of Algerians in France during this period?

TP: The 17 October massacre was unique within metropolitan France in the scale of violence: Police in Paris killed somewhere between 120 and 200 Algerians, and imprisoned another fourteen thousand in detention centers around the city in the days following.

KCF (interrupting): I’m sorry, did you just say the French government put thousands of Algerians in detention camps? Continue reading →

Posted in France, Mass Atrocity Monday | 3 Comments

A Matter of Justice, Not Immigration: What to do with War Criminals posing as Refugees

Life jackets from refugees escaping violence in Syria and elsewhere lay strewn on the shores of Lesbos, Greece. (Photo: EPA)

Life jackets from refugees escaping violence in Syria and elsewhere lay strewn on the shores of Lesbos, Greece. (Photo: EPA)

Rumours that terrorists have been hiding themselves among Syrian refugees and asylum seekers embarking for the shores and capitals Europe are nothing new. Especially in the wake of the Paris attacks last year, it was widely reported that groups like ISIS, or Daesh, as it’s increasingly called, were infiltrating European communities to perpetrate acts of terror. Now too, there is evidence that war criminals have followed suit.

According a report from the Guardian, Dutch authorities have identified thirty war criminals among last year’s influx of refugees into The Netherlands:

Dutch officials have identified 30 war crimes suspects, including 10 Syrians, among tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived in the country last year, the justice ministry said Monday.

Immigration authorities found them after investigating 170 people, Deputy Justice Minister Klaas Dijkhoff told parliament in a letter following questions from members of parliament.

Ten of them were from Syria, while the others are from Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan and Georgia, he said.

Under the Geneva Convention, refugees can be refused asylum “when serious grounds exist to believe that they are guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other non-political serious crimes”, Dijkhoff said.

But 20 of them could not be sent back because of ongoing wars or fears of inhumane treatment.

If the numbers are accurate, the number of refugee claimants found to be war criminals is a tiny fraction of those seeking asylum — approximately 5 in every 10,000 applicants. Still, this is not the first time that war criminals have been found among migrants — in The Netherlands or elsewhere. A 2006 CMI report on the subject attributed the growth in war criminals cloaking themselves as refugees to the global war on terror, poignantly asking how states could “guarantee fair procedures and humane treatment of all asylum seekers and simultaneously prevent human rights violators or terrorists from wrongfully being granted refugee status?”

Today, the severity of, and popular response to, the refugee “crisis” in Europe could make this issue even graver and more pressing than it otherwise would be. Of course, the flushing out and identification of war criminals can be seen as a positive development. These individuals would otherwise live with impunity and, given the complete absence of any justice for human rights violations in Syria, the detention of 10 Syrian war criminals is the closest thing to accountability for mass atrocities in the five years since the Syrian civil war erupted. Even if these are “small fry”, low-level perpetrators, they could help build cases for more senior-level war criminals.

But the revelation that so many war criminals made it into The Netherlands could also exacerbate and fuel regional racism and xenophobia among those communities and political parties already suspicious of foreigners. Responsible governments and human rights groups thus have a difficult task on their hands. They must needle a particularly tricky thread: demonstrate the need to continue supporting a generous and compassionate refugee policy whilst quelling fears that war criminals pose a threat by assuring communities that perpetrators will be brought to justice. But will they be brought to account? It isn’t entirely clear. Continue reading →

Posted in Canada, Europe, International Criminal Justice, Refugees, Syria, The Netherlands | 11 Comments

Prosecuting the Destruction of Shrines at the ICC – A Clash of Civilizations?

al Mahdi ICC

Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi during his confirmation of charges hearing at the International Criminal Court (Photo: ICC)

The potential trial of Ahmed Al Faqi Al Mahdi marks a series of firsts for global justice. Al Mahdi, who faced confirmation of charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) this week, is the first individual from Mali to face the prospect of prosecution at the ICC. More pertinently, he is the first Islamic extremist to face charges at the Court and the first individual to be prosecuted at the ICC for the destruction of cultural sites as a war crime. ICC prosecutors insist that al Mahdi, a rebel leader in northern Mali and a member of Ansar Dine, is responsible for the destruction of religious shrines and mausoleums in Timbuktu in 2012. So how will the self-professed teacher and scholar defend himself against the charges against him and what could his trial mean for the global fight against extremism and terrorism?

Notably and somewhat unusually, al Mahdi and the team of lawyers defending him have decided not to present details of their defence. According to Tom Maliti, this suggests al Mahdi’s counsel believe that the charges against him will be confirmed and are simply waiting for the trial to begin.

While some ICC insiders believed al Mahdi was a prime candidate for a guilty plea when he first came into the Court’s custody, that certainly doesn’t appear to be the case. It also appears that he will respect the authority of the Court. But his team appears poised to eschew any direct defence of their client. Al Mahdi’s counsel are likely cognizant of the fact that it would be virtually pointless, given the prosecution’s evidence, to argue that al Mahdi was not involved in the destruction of mausoleums and historic sites in Timbuktu. Moreover, it seems entirely possible that al Mahdi revels in his role in destroying shrines in northern Mali. This is, as his lawyers implied, part of his religious philosophy. Indeed, rather than dealing with the specific allegations, al Mahdi’s defence counsel seem more inclined to pit his radical, Islamic worldview against that which underpins the ICC. As Geoffrey York put it,

[al Mahdi’s] defence lawyers are seeking to turn the trial into a battle over “the definition of the divine.”

The landmark case in The Hague, focused on the destruction of ancient shrines in Timbuktu, is emerging as a clash between two world views, part of a broader global struggle over the meaning of Islam. While prosecutors portray the cultural destruction as an attempt to annihilate a civilization, the defence sees it instead as simply a different “vision” of “good over evil.”

While his lawyers did argue that only the “covers”, and not the tombs, of shrines in Timbuktu had been destroyed, it is evident that al Mahdi’s defence is primarily concerned with demonstrating that what he did was right, rather than arguing that he didn’t do it. One of al Mahdi’s lawyers, Jean-Louis Gilissen, insisted that his client’s decisions were made in line with “a new possibility for Mali.” He stressed that his client’s views were political rather than criminal: “Fundamentalism is a political plan or project and, let’s be clear on this, a political project that is not a crime. This is important and should be stressed.” In this context, al Mahdi was “doing what is right” and “seeking the means to allow his conception of good over evil to prevail.” Rather ominously, Gilissen added: “We’re talking about two visions of the world that are in contradiction.” Continue reading →

Posted in International Criminal Court (ICC), International Criminal Justice, Mali, Terrorism | Tagged | 5 Comments

Event: Prospects of Justice, Avenues for Accountability – Investigating War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in Syria

For any and all readers in the Toronto area, I am thrilled to announce that I have organized my first event at the Munk School of Global Affairs: ‘Prospects of Justice, Avenues for Accountability – Investigating War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in Syria’. The event will feature Bill Wiley and Nerma Jelacic of the Commission for International Justice and Accountability and Stephen Toope, Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs, discussing the prospects of accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria. The event will take place in the Vivian and David Campbell Conference Facility on 8 March from 6 – 7:30pm. Please make sure to RSVP by following the links here.

If you’re in the area, please do join us and make sure to say hi! If you can’t make it, fear not – I will be sure to write an analysis of the event in the coming days. 

Munk EventNow entering its fifth year, the Syrian civil war has been characterized by the perpetration of mass atrocities and human rights violations committed by all parties to the conflict. Will justice ever be served for the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria? Can all sides — the Syrian regime, rebel militants, ISIS,— be held accountable for the rights violations they have wrought upon civilians in the region? How can and should evidence of such abuses be collected? Will such evidence ever be used in a courtroom? The Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA) has been on the front lines collecting and protecting evidence of mass atrocities committed during the Syria civil war. Join CIJA’s William Wiley and Nerma Jelacic in a conversation with Munk School Director Stephen Toope on international accountability, international criminal investigations, and the remarkable work being undertaken by CIJA investigators.

William Wiley is the Founder and Director of the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA). William formerly worked in the Office of the Prosecutor at both the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as well as the International Criminal Court, was an infantry officer in the Canadian military and worked on war crimes investigations in the Department of Justice.

Nerma Jelacic is the Director of External Relations and Communications at the Commission for International Justice and Accountability. Prior to joining CIJA, Nerma was the Head of Communications for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the Director and co-founder of the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), as well as an editor at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

Stephen Toope is the Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. Stephen has previously been the president of the President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of British Columbia as well as the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. He has also served as President of the Canadian Council on International Law and member of the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law.

The Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA) is an innovative, non-profit organisation committed to establishing the individual criminal responsibility of high-level perpetrators implicated in violations of International Criminal and Humanitarian Law (ICHL) in conflict and post-conflict areas where public bodies, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) or domestic prosecutorial authorities, are unable to intervene due to physical risk, insufficient expertise or in the absence of jurisdiction. Its intervention in Syria has already resulted with the completion of three internationally-acclaimed case files inculpating 23 of the highest ranking regime officials.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

6:00PM – 7:30PM

The Vivian and David Campbell Conference Facility, Munk School of Global Affairs 1 Devonshire Place

Please RSVP here.

 

Posted in JiC News, Syria | Tagged , , , | 10 Comments