Cambodia: Bringing the Surviving Leaders of the Khmer Rouge to Justice

Four of the most senior Khmer Rouge leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the deaths of 1.7 million people have gone on trial at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.

With the aging leaders all in their late 70s or early 80s and with the former leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot long deceased, the trial before the United Nations-backed panel represents the last and best chance for Cambodia to bring accountability to the Khmer Rouge leadership blamed for the deaths.

On trial are Nuon Chea, 84, who was Pol Pot's No.2 and the group's chief ideologist; Khieu Samphan, 79, the former head of state; Ieng Sary, 85, the former foreign minister, and his wife, Ieng Thirith, 79, who served as minister for social affairs.

The prosecution claims that the four leaders are guilty of a “joint criminal enterprise” in which their leadership made them culpable, whether or not they participated directly in the crimes. All four of the defendants say they are innocent.

Many in Cambodia hope that the public trial will clarify for history the actions of the Khmer Rouge, who caused the deaths of 1.7 million people — nearly a fourth of the population — from 1975 to 1979.

Chief judge Nil Nonn opened the court session on Monday with procedural matters, including reading out the charges against the four which include crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, religious persecution, homicide and torture. Cambodian victims' advocates have decried how long it has taken to launch the trial, saying the proceedings are needed to shed light on a dark period and that time is running out for drawing meaningful testimony from the defendants on the stand.

Although all four defendants were present for the start of Monday's session, three of them were allowed to exercise the right to excuse themselves for reason of poor health, leaving only Khieu Samphan in the courtroom.

In recent months, the tribunal has been mired in controversy over what critics charge is an effort by the co-investigating judges to scuttle further prosecutions. Critics have suggested the panel is folding to Cambodian government pressure to bring an end to the trials. The Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, presumably wary that political allies who once served with the Khmer Rouge - as he did - could face prosecution, has declared he simply won't allow further indictments. He has long sought to limit the scope of the tribunal

The Tribunal started operations in 2006. Its first defendant was Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch, commandant of Tuol Sleng prison, where only a handful of prisoners survived. Up to 16,000 people were tortured under Duch's command and later taken away to be killed. Duch, now 68, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity. His sentence was reduced to a 19-year term because of time previously served and other technicalities, bringing angry criticism from victims who called the punishment too lenient.

The Initial Hearing of Case 002 lasts from 27th -30th June 2011.

For more information:

http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/articles/featured/case-002-initial-hearing-27th-30th-june-2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/jun/27/cambodia-khmer-rouge-trial-video

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/world/asia/28cambodia.html

Electing the ICC’s Next Prosecutor: The Criteria

The term of the ICC’s first Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, is slowly, albeit dramatically, drawing to a close. In December 2011 the members of ICC’s Assembly of State Parties will convene to choose the Court’s next Prosecutor. He or she will officially replace Moreno-Ocampo in June 2012. Every member-state of the Court will have one vote in deciding the ICC’s second prosecutor. In early February, the ICC set up a search committee to identify some potential candidates.

Moreno-Ocampo is the only chief Prosecutor the Court has ever known. Since 2002, when the ICC came into being, he has managed to shine a tremendous amount of spotlight on the workings of the Court. He has also managed to rub a lot of people the wrong way. His record will be something for scholars of all stripes to pour over in the coming years. But what about the next ICC Prosecutor? Who will he or she be?

The Assembly of State Parties will decide in December 2011who the next ICC Prosecutor will be.

There are a number of issues member-states will consider as they take time over the next few months to decide who they will support. A range of factors will surely shape the calculus of states as they inch towards the December vote. Here are a few considerations.

The Politics of Location

The question of the region and nation from which the next Prosecutor comes from is perhaps where the political inclinations of every state and non-state actor involved in the election will be strongest. This is also where the danger of vote trading is highest – states trading and grouping votes together on the basis of political considerations (eg. a vote in another international institution) rather than basing their decisions on the quality of the candidate.

It is highly unlikely that the Prosecutor will be North American or European. The vast majority of member-states come from Africa, South America and Asia. Africa still makes up the largest contingent and the AU has already been clear that it wants an African Prosecutor to lead the Court. Noting that none of the ICC’s top positions (ie. the heads of the Court’s four organs) are filled by an African citizen, there is a strong case to be made that the next Prosecutor should be African. According to one report, the AU will nominate a candidate this summer.

Moreno-Ocampo is an Argentine. One of his earliest professional roles was as an assistant prosecutor in the trial of Argentina’s Dirty War leaders. Will the next Prosecutor also come from a non-Western state which has persevered through mass human rights atrocities? It seems at least a distinct possibility. An African Prosecutor certainly wouldn’t be a bad political choice. A widely respected African candidate would dampen charges of neo-colonialism and the view of the Court as a European-Court against Africa.

An interesting political choice would also be an Arab and/or Middle Eastern candidate, perhaps from one of the Arab Spring states. This would only add to the impressive and powerful movement of Arab and Middle Eastern states towards recognition and greater participation in international criminal justice. It would be a remarkable signal to the world that the Middle Eastern and Arab states are going to be productive and engaged players in the pursuit of ending international impunity. Another possible choice would be an Asian candidate. Although the number of Asian ICC member-states remains small, the region is represented at the Court by the President, who is South Korean. Another high-profile international posting, that of the UN Secretary General, is almost guaranteed to be taken up by Ban Ki-Moon once again, another South Korean national. These factors could play a role against any Asian candidate for Chief Prosecutor at the ICC.

Secretary or General?

This factor is more about style rather than the substance of the next Prosecutor’s Curriculum Vitae. The Prosecutor is largely (if not officially) responsible for being the chief-spokesperson for the ICC and for many, for international criminal justice. In this context, the job is as much about how the Prosecutor goes about his/her business as it is about what business he/she conducts.

The question of whether he or she will be a ‘secretary’ or a ‘general’ draws on debates about the selection of Ban Ki-moon as the most recent UN Secretary General. While his predecessor, Kofi Annan, was regarded as a ‘general’ – using his high-profile and secular pulpit to act as a norm entrepreneur on various fronts, Ban Ki-Moon has to date been a much more soft-spoken and behind-the-scenes kind of Secretary General. In other words, he is more a ‘secretary’ than a ‘general’. There is no doubt that on this scale, Moreno-Ocampo is more of a general than a secretary. He has literally been the face of the ICC during his term. As a Prosecutor he is remarkably charismatic and has garnered the Court more attention than most would have thought possible. For some, this has been the hallmark of his success. For others, Moreno-Ocampo’s willingness to bluntly “stick his fingers in it” has been a constant source of exasperation. Some, like the African Union Commission’s Chairman, Jean Ping has taken aim at the Prosecutor himself:

“Frankly speaking, we are not against the International Criminal Court. What we are against is Ocampo’s justice — the justice of a man.”

On the surface, it seems unlikely that states will want another Prosecutor with the aptitude to attract controversy like Moreno-Ocampo. Early rumblings suggest a greater likelihood of a secretary-type rather than a general-type as the next Prosecutor.

Experience and capability

It is anyone's guess right now who will succeed Luis Moreno-Ocampo as ICC Prosecutor. Granted, this is the least ‘sexy’ and least political of criteria but perhaps the most important. The Prosecutor simply must have the right skill-set to be in charge of the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICC. There is likely to be a number of candidates with these qualifications, opening up space for the politics of decision-making to flourish (see above). The only real politicking that could theoretically occur here is if a member-state who was opposed to the Court attempted to nominate a complete dud as the next Prosecutor. It is not as crazy as you’d think: one of the ICC’s first judges didn’t have a law degree. Still, it is unlikely that a state would try to sabotage the Court by getting an inexperienced and under-qualified candidate nominated. The Rome Statute has specific guidelines that a potential Prosecutor must meet. The pertinent section, Article 42, specifies that the Prosecutor:

“shall be persons of high moral character, be highly competent in and have extensive practical experience in the prosecution or trial of criminal cases. They shall have an excellent knowledge of and be fluent in at least one of the working languages of the Court.”

Further, human rights groups and interested parties will surely put pressure on states to elect a qualified candidate. Indeed, the `Open Society Justice Initiative has already issued a statement outlining the qualities it wants to see in the next Prosecutor:

- demonstrated experience of professional excellence in complex criminal cases
- demonstrated ability to act with independence and impartiality in the exercise of professional duties
- a proven track-record of professional excellence in institutional management
- demonstrated experience in working with other bodies or agencies effectively
- demonstrated experience in communicating effectively to a wide variety of constituencies

In short, the Prosecutor’s experience and qualifications must allow him to wear two hats at the same time. He must be both a manager and a prosecutor.

Gender

Will the ICC member-states pursue gender equality as a criteria in the selection of a new Prosecutor? The same AU meeting which ended in an agreement to demand an African Prosecutor also concluded that gender equity should be considered. There is no shortage of highly qualified women. For anyone who doubts this, remember what Louise Arbour did for the ad hoc tribunals and the UN’s Human Rights. Sadly, international institutions have remained largely resistant to putting women into the most visible positions. Nevertheless, it would be an incredible day for gender equality if a woman were to be elected as ICC Prosecutor.

By Mark Kersten, a PhD candidate in the International Relations Department at the London School of Economics. He maintains his own blog 'Justice in Conflict' and is a regular contributor to the site 'Global Memo'

For more information:

http://justiceinconflict.org/2011/06/03/the-iccs-next-top-prosecutor-the-candidates/

http://globalmemo.org/2011/06/13/electing-the-iccs-next-prosecutor-the-criteria/

ICC Issues Arrest Warrants in Libya Situation

The Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has today issued warrants of arrest for Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi for crimes against humanity allegedly carried out across Libya.

In accordance with Article 58 of the Rome Statue, the PTC held that that there are "reasonable grounds to believe that, following the events in Tunisia and Egypt which led to the departure of their respective Presidents in the early months of 2011, a State policy was designed at the highest level of the Libyan State machinery and aimed at deterring and quelling, by any means, including by the use of lethal force, the demonstrations of civilians against Gaddafi's regime which started in February 2011".

For more information please see:

PTC Decision on the Prosecutor's Request for Arrest Warrants
http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1099314.pdf

Warrant of Arrest for Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi
http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1099321.pdf

Ratko Mladic makes his first appearance at the ITCY

On 3 June 2011, Ratko Mladic, the former commander of the Bosnian Serb army, made his first appearance at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It is alleged that Mladic, who has been charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war, is responsible for the massacre of thousands of Muslim boys and men in Srebrenica in 1995.

At the initial appearance, Mladic stated that he "did not want to hear a single letter or sentence of [the] indictment". He also refused to enter a plea, electing to postpone his decision for 30 days in order to study the indictment and circumstances surrounding the trial. If Mladic refuses to enter a plea at the second appearance - which is scheduled for 4 July 2011 - the Court will enter a not-guilty plea on his behalf.

For more information:

Steven Kay QC interview on BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/impact_asia/9498863.stm

Toby Cadman interview on BBC Scotland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgGkW3-ZeZQ

ICTY Video footage of first appearance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TsS0c-HdDZg

Prosecution's second amended indictment:
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/ind/en/110601.pdf

Press articles:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13637780
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/ratko-mladic-war-crimes-court

Media speculation rife in international cases in acquittal of Cermak

Media speculation is often rife in international cases as I have recently experienced following the acquittal of Cermak at the ICTY.  The Croatian media has asserted as fact many ridiculous and frankly stupid stories ranging from the interference of British Intelligence Services (it was at one stage the French!) to any other conspiracy theory you care to name. An interesting decision from the Pre-Trial Chamber in Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali at the ICC has arisen which recognizes that an Application by the Defence for Muthaura concerning media comment by the Prosecutor, raises issues which are of legitimate concern to the Defence. The Application was dismissed on the issue before the Court. There is no doubt that parties in litigation may attempt to use the press for their own ends in an attempt to influence proceedings. For the avoidance of doubt this post by the ICLB is to educate on the issue rather than have any other intent!

Judge Ekaterina Trendafilova, acting as Single Judge on behalf of Pre-Trial Chamber II (the "Chamber") of the International Criminal Court (the "Court''), renders this decision with respect to the "Application for Order to the Prosecutor Regarding Extra-judicial Comments to the Press" (the "Application"), submitted by the Defence for Francis Kirimi Muthaura.

On 8 March 2011, the Chamber, by majority, decided to summon Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, and Mohammed Hussein Ali to appear before the Court. The initial appearance took place on 8 April 2011.

2. On 30 March 2011, the Defence for Francis Kirimi Muthaura ("Mr. Muthaura") filed before the Chamber the Application, "seeking the intervention of the Pre-Trial Chamber to safeguard his fair trial rights, the integrity of the judicial process that has commenced and in order to prevent irremediable prejudice to the Defence". The Application is based on comments made by the Prosecutor during a press conference which took place on 14 March 2011. A copy of the transcript of the said press conference, which refers to the Prosecutor's statement that Mr. Muthaura has control over the police in Kenya, is annexed to the Application.

3. In the Application, the Defence argues that "the inappropriate and one sided press comments by the Prosecutor and his repeatedly presenting theory as fact, has the potential to infect the investigations process and significantly disadvantage the Defence", and requests that the Chamber:
a. Order the Prosecutor of the ICC to refrain from making any further public comments touching on the merits of the present case;
Additionally or in the alternative.
In the event that any press comment is deemed absolutely necessary in order to discharge his responsibilities under the Rome Statute, to require the Prosecutor to make clear that his assertions are mere allegations by the Prosecution, the veracity of which are to be determined by the ICC; and
c. Put the Prosecutor on notice that any further contravention of the orders of the Pre-Trial Chamber in this regard may attract consideration of judicial sanction.

4. On 20 April 2011, the Prosecutor submitted the "Prosecution's Response to the 'Application for Order to the Prosecutor Regarding Extra-judicial Comments to the Press'" (the "Response"), in which it is argued that "[t]here [was] nothing objectionable in the Prosecutor's comment. It did not address the merits of the case or infringe on [Mr. Muthaura's] fair trial rights or the integrity of the judicial process". According to the Response, the Prosecutor "expressed proper and legitimate concerns about the possibility that Mr Muthaura could exercise authority over the witness protection program." The Prosecutor requested the Chamber to dismiss the Application in its entirety.

5. The Single Judge notes article 68(1) of the Rome Statute (the "Statute").

6. At the outset, the Single Judge recognizes that the Application raises issues which are of legitimate concern to the Defence. Notwithstanding the absence of a specific statutory provision regulating the relationship between the parties and the press, it must be stated, as a matter of principle, that the safeguarding of the proper administration of justice and the integrity of the judicial proceedings requires the parties, participants and any person involved in the proceedings, to refrain from making public statements or engage in any other activity which could have an impact on the evidence or the merits of the case or could be perceived as showing a predetermination of the cause pending before the Court. In this light, the Single Judge recalls what this Chamber has recently stated:
While it is not the Chamber's role to comment and advise the Prosecutor on his interaction with the press and media, the Chamber nevertheless is concerned if his actions have the potential to affect the administration of justice and the integrity of the present proceedings before the Chamber.

7. The Single Judge also recalls and endorses the principles affirmed in this respect by Trial Chamber I in the Lubanga case, although the factual circumstances before the Trial Chamber differ significantly from those on which the Application is based. In its "Decision on the press interview with Ms Le Fraper du Hellen", the Trial Chamber stated:

It is not the role of the Chamber to comment on the arrangements that are, or should be, in place as regards the relationship between the Court {i.e. its various organs and counsel appearing in its cases) and the media. The Chamber's concern is instead focussed on the course of the present trial, and the need to ensure that the interests of justice are upheld [...].

8. More specifically. Trial Chamber I held:
39. [...] It is important that in media statements there is a clear and accurate description as to whether issues that are reported have been decided or are still unresolved. Most importantly, and as a matter of professional ethics a party to proceedings is expected not to misrepresent the evidence, to misdescribe the functions of the parties or the Chamber, or to suggest or imply without proper foundation that anyone in the case, including the accused, has misbehaved.
40. [...] In our judgment, respecting the Chamber, the judicial process and the other participants involves speaking publicly about the proceedings in a fair and accurate way, and avoiding any comment about issues that are for the Chamber to determine.

9. The Single Judge considers that the foregoing considerations constitute the appropriate principal framework under which the facts giving rise to the present Application shall be analyzed.

10. Upon careful review of the transcript of the Prosecutor's press conference of 14 March 2011, the Single Judge is of the view that the topics addressed by the Prosecutor in his answers to the press were not related to the crimes for which Mr.Muthaura has been summoned or those which the Prosecutor may bring before the Chamber as charges. Rather, the Prosecutor commented on the position held by Mr. Muthaura at the time of the press conference vis-à-vis the Kenyan police, while making clear reference to the "protection [of witnesses]" and the related "conditions of the judges". The latter can logically be understood as the condition imposed by the Chamber on Mr. Muthaura "to refrain from corruptly influencing a witness, obstructing or interfering with the attendance or testimony of a witness, or tampering with or interfering with the Prosecution's collection of evidence".

11. At first, the Single Judge recalls that, under article 68(1) of the Statute, the Prosecutor is vested with the duty to protect witnesses during his investigations and prosecutions. Secondly, the Single Judge considers that the Prosecutor's answers to the press have properly reflected his role in the present criminal proceedings and cannot be understood as prejudging the questions which are yet to be determined by the Chamber. The Single Judge is thus of the view that the Prosecutor's comments to the press addressed issues of his concern and within his responsibilities and were therefore not inappropriate. Accordingly, it is not necessary to address the validity of the Prosecutor's concern for the protection of witnesses in the case or to take into consideration the information provided by the Prosecutor that Mr. Muthaura has since stepped down from the position in question. It may also be added that no prejudicial nature can be attributed to the newspaper articles summarizing the Prosecutor's comments during the press conference, which are annexed to the Application.

12. In light of the foregoing, the Single Judge concludes that the statements made by the Prosecutor during the press conference of 14 March 2011 did not violate the principles set out in paragraphs 6 to 8 above. Consequently, the Application must be rejected in its entirety.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE SINGLE JUDGE HEREBY rejects the Application.

ICT seems to be a political tool

Int’l standard not followed: Cadman

“Neither striving for nor opposing the independence should be considered as crime. Only those, who bear criminal responsibility of violations of international humanitarian law, should stand trial,”

International expert on war crimes issue Toby Cadman, now visiting Dhaka, has said all parties involved in the 1971 Liberation War, whether they are freedom fighters or pro-Pakistani elements, should face prosecution in case of committing crimes against international humanitarian law.

In a written statement released prior to his departure from Dhaka on Sunday, Cadman, former Head of the Prosecution Section for War Crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, made the remarks responding to a number of critical comments against him at a roundtable discussion held in the city on March 3.

It is alleged that inflammatory comments were made against him at the function but he was not given any opportunity to respond to those,
Toby Cadman attended a round table discussion hosted by the Prothom Alo at the invitation of US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp but his presence was criticized without giving him scope to respond.

He said, although he was received ‘with the highest respect by the Bangladesh government’, he did not find any welcome from the Sectors Commanders’ Forum and trustees of the Liberation War Museum.

“Neither striving for nor opposing the independence should be considered as crime. Only those, who bear criminal responsibility of violations of international humanitarian law, should stand trial,” added Cadman.

He said, the Tribunal has the opportunity of showing the world a model of judicial process, but, as it currently stand, the court could be seen as nothing more than a tool of political retribution.

“To the date, the Tribunal has not abided by international standards of justice, he said.”

He said, the International Crime Tribunal (ICT), formed in Bangladesh to try the war criminals of 1971 liberation war, has not followed current internationally accepted standards of justice. “It is openly dismissive of the concerns raised by organizations such as International Center for Transitional Justice”,
A state which has signed up along-side other 144 countries to an internationally agreed standard of conduct is applying rules and procedures, which are fundamentally contradictory to those standards of human rights and justice.

“About seven weeks passed after Stephen J Rapp recommended some revisions of the crimes act and rules, which may fulfill only minimum level of international standard, but the government was not seen to take an initiative to implement the changes till now, he alleged.

“If the trial is preceded without recommended amendments to the rules and laws, it could set a terrible precedent all over the world,” Cadman said. Saying that human rights were being violated thoroughly for the present law and rules,
Cadman urged the other countries, who are supporters of democracy and human rights, to come forward to pressurizing the country to change the 1973 crimes law and 2010 rules.

?He also alleged that the process of interrogating the war crime suspects is not being maintained as per international standard and fundamental rights are being violated in that process.

?He also alleged that the war crime suspects ‘have been denied access to medical treatment requested for’.?Toby Cadman, an expert on international crimes law, said there is currently no right of interlocutory appeal or judicial review against any decision in the present International (Tribunal) Act. US Ambassador-at-Large Stephan Rapp too has raised this as one of his principal concerns.

?Regarding the definition of crimes, Cadman said there is a crucial debate and presently the definitions under the Act are outdated and in places clearly wrong. These are taken principally from the International Military Tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo. However, international law has advanced quite dramatically since that time, he pointed out.

About the death penalty, he said if the government values the respect of law and democracy, the government of Bangladesh should not allow this process to proceed any further until it has satisfied Ambassador Rapp and international bodies, who are trying to help them by providing technical and financial assistance.

If a tribunal is allowed to go ahead on the basis of the flaws outlined above, justice will not be done, nor will it be seen to be done, he said.

Further, and equally important, Bangladesh will miss an important opportunity to show the world how a model of democratic process and the rule of law can be served, Cadman added.

Libya: Arab League Support, and the Targeting of Gaddafi

Yesterday the Arab League met in Cairo for an emergency session to discuss recent developments in Libya. The support of the Arab League was crucial to the passing of UN resolution 1973, and remains vital to the legitimacy of the ongoing Western-led military offensive in Libya that followed that resolution. However, on Sunday, the League’s Secretary-General Amr Moussa expressed concerns that: “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians.” The following day, perhaps in response to US and European pressure, Moussa clarified that: “We are committed to UN security council resolution 1973. We have no objection to this decision, particularly as it does not call for an invasion of Libyan territory.” This equivocation has caused alarm in many Western capitals.

Meanwhile, debate continues over whether or not UN resolution 1973 authorises the deliberate targeting of Colonel Gaddafi. In the UK, chief of defence staff Sir David Richards said no, while defence secretary Liam Fox and Prime Minister David Cameron said maybe. Head of the U.S. Africa Command, General Carter F Ham, has said that attacking Gaddafi was not part of his mandate, whereas President Obama publicly stated yesterday that it is the policy of the U.S. government that Gaddafi must leave office.

While the British government focused on whether the text of the resolution authorised direct action against Gaddafi, Obama took a more nuanced approach. He justified the apparent contradiction between the positions of the White House and the Pentagon by drawing a distinction between the aims of the US government and the US military in relation to Libya. The US government was focused on the removal of Gaddafi he said, but it was looking at diplomatic, rather than military methods to achieve this. The US military by contrast were instead acting under a separate “international mandate” granted by the Security Council that was focused on protecting Libyan civilians.

The practical reality of this distinction might be questionable, but it at least does not require legal debates over whether resolution 1973, which was passed ostensibly for the purpose of protecting Libyan citizens, would permit a direct strike against Gaddafi. Such debates surely make it far easier for Gaddafi to denounce the military operation in Libya as “colonialist-crusader” attacks, as he did this morning. They are also surely not helpful to the Arab League’s attempts to build a consensus for political and practical support for the Western-led military activity in Libya. There has been much talk about the “emotional optics” or public perception of the manner of the West’s involvement in Libya. It is hard to see how the “emotional optics” in respect to debates over whether or not Gaddafi can be legally assassinated by the West can be anything other than negative.

Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/muammar-gaddafi-david-cameron-libya?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/arab-league-support-back-on-board-but-consensus-remains-far-from-firm-2250167.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/obama-says-no-conflict-in-u-s-policy-un-libya-mandate-1-.html

Toby Cadman of 9 Bedford Row International appeared on behalf of the Requesting Judicial Authority of Malta

Toby Cadman of 9 Bedford Row International appeared on behalf of the Requesting Judicial Authority of Malta in an extradition appeal before the Administrative Court.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/9-bedford-row-international/toby-cadman-appeared-on-behalf-of-the-requesting-judicial-authority-in-an-extrad/160647600656120