Book Launch: Unimaginable Atrocities, by William Schabas

Professor William A. Schabas will today launch his book ‘Unimaginable Atrocities: Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals.’ The book launch will be hosted by Sir Geoffrey Nice at Middlesex University’s Hendon campus at 5.30 pm.

About the book:

• Highlights critical debates and controversies facing international criminal courts and tribunals, such as the tensions between peace and justice, and between fair trial rights and the need to secure a conviction.
• Presents fresh analysis of these issues from an interdisciplinary perspective and offers innovative solutions.
• Written by one of the undisputed authorities on international crimes and war crimes tribunals.
• Accessible and clear style makes the book a good read for lawyers and non‐specialists alike.

Please click here for further information.

Endowing the African Court of Justice and Human Rights with Jurisdiction over International Crimes: A More Legitimate Form of Justice for Africa or a Recipe for Disaster?

ARC Paper Proposal for Conference on International Law in Africa

On 14 March 2012, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (the “ICC”) delivered its long awaited first judgment in the case of The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06). The ICC found Thomas Lubanga guilty of the war crimes of conscripting, enlisting, and using children under the age of 15 years for combat purposes while serving as political head of the Union of Congolese Patriots rebel group in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

On 4 April 2012, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC rejected the second request of the Libyan Government that Libya be allowed to postpone the surrender, to the ICC, of Saif Gaddafi.

These recent developments are likely to reinforce three perceptions of international criminal justice: first, that international criminal justice is pursuing an African agenda; second, that ending impunity comes at a high price, the Lubanga trial in particular running up costs into millions of US dollars and taking an inexplicably long time to complete; and third, that the effectiveness of the international criminal justice system is ultimately dependant on the political will of national authorities.

Meanwhile, in the heart of Africa, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights sits in relative obscurity. Few know how to use it and it is in serious danger of being marginalised. At some point in the future, the court will be merged with the Court of Justice of the African Union, in order to form the permanent African Court of Justice and Human Rights. A protocol to this effect was adopted at the African Union Summit in July 2008. From 7 to 15 May 2012, the African Union will meet to discuss, inter alia, a Draft Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (the “Draft Protocol”), which aims to confer upon the African Court of Justice and Human Rights international criminal jurisdiction.

In this paper, we discuss the relative merits and obstacles of the proposed international criminal law regime for Africa. In particular, we assess:

(i)              the merits of the perception that international criminal justice institutions pursue an African agenda;

(ii)            the benefits of a functioning African court with jurisdiction over international crimes, in particular for the legitimacy of international criminal justice;

(iii)           the obstacles to such a regime in light of lessons learned from the practice of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (in particular, difficulties resulting from its dependency on the African Union to enforce its orders and judgments) and the ICC (in particular, difficulties envisaged in light of the large amount of resources required to run an effective international criminal trial); and

(iv)            amendments that would need to be made to the Draft Protocol in order to ensure that it is complementary to other international justice mechanisms, such as the ICC.

50th Anniversary Of Eichmann Trial

On Monday, the United Nations marked the 50th anniversary of the Adolf Eichmann trial. Eichmann was a Nazi officer and one of the leading organizers of the mass deportation as well as the murder of Jews during the Holocaust. At the headquarters in New York, the UN marked this anniversary with a series of events as well as discussions.

In the visitor lobby of the UN headquarters an exhibition with the title “With me are 6 Million Accusers: The Eichmann Trial in Jerusalem” was launched. Furthermore a round table discussion with Israeli Minister Yossi Peled and Holocaust survivors took place.

For further information:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41855&Cr=israel&Cr1=

Judgment in the Charles Taylor Case

Judgment in The Prosecutor v Charles Taylor will be delivered today at 11am (9am GMT) in the Hague.

Watch the live stream of the proceedings here.

Karadzic had "Detailed Information" on Srebrenica

By Dzenana Halimovic

The trial of former Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic continued this week with testimony from an American military analyst about events in eastern Bosnia in 1995.

Richard Butler, an intelligence officer for the United States National Security Agency, worked as a military intelligence analyst for the Office of the Prosecutor, OTP, at the Hague tribunal from April 1997 until November 2003.

Butler was particularly involved in the Srebrenica investigation and wrote two expert reports for the OTP relating to the military structure, organisation and functioning of the Bosnian Serb Army, VRS.

He also interviewed a number of witnesses and analysed intercepted conversations between various Republika Srpska, RS, political and military leaders during the Bosnian war.

Karadzic is accused of planning and overseeing the murder of some 8,000 Bosniak men and boys at Srebrenica in July 1995. The indictment against him includes genocide, extermination, murder, persecutions and other crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Butler has already appeared as a prosecution witness at several trials at the Hague tribunal.

This week, he told the court that Karadzic had been well informed about all VRS operations in eastern Bosnia in 1995. He pointed out that in 1992 there were far more Bosniaks than Serbs in that area, which was under the jurisdiction of the Drina corps of the VRS.

He also said that one of the main goals of the Bosnian Serb political and military leadership was to cleanse eastern Bosnia of Muslim civilians. To this end, Karadzic issued two documents – Directive 4 in autumn 1992 and Directive 7 in March 1995 – which were given to the VRS. Butler explained said the Bosnian Serb leadership issued nine directives during the war. Directives 4 and 7 were designed to create an intolerable situation of total insecurity, with no hope of survival, for inhabitants of the Srebrenica and Zepa enclaves.

Butler told the court that Karadzic issued Directive 7 on March 8, 1995.

“The problem with this directive was that in addition to legitimate military targets, it introduced civilians as a target of military operations,” he said, adding that by doing this the VRS “had crossed the line”.

As a result of Directive 7, he said, VRS launched operation “Krivaja 95” in July 1995. The aim of this operation was to “set Srebrenica and Zepa enclaves apart, and therefore improve VRS’s tactical position for elimination of those enclaves”.

The witness said the then VRS chief General Ratko Mladic personally approved this operation. Mladic is currently awaiting trial for genocide and other war crimes at the Hague tribunal.

Prosecutors presented in court an intercepted conversation from July 6, 1995 between Karadzic and the head of the Drina corps at the time, General Milenko Zivanovic.

Zivanovic was appointed commander of the Drina corps when it was formed on November 1, 1992, and served in the post until 13 July, 1995.

Commenting on this conversation, Butler said that it showed that Karadzic was fully informed about events in the Srebrenica area at that time.

“This reflects the fact that President Karadzic, as [VRS] supreme commander, was involved in everything that was going on,” Butler said.

He added that Karadzic “did not only have detailed information on what was happening in Srebrenica, but in other areas as well”.

Butler then told the court that a July 13, 1995 report from the RS interior ministry or MUP showed that “the process [of taking Muslim men prisoner after the fall of Srebrenica] started in the evening of July 12”.

He explained that the report indicated that “at first there were hundreds [of prisoners] and during the day thousands were detained”.

According to the documents Butler examined, as the day went on, the numbers of captured Muslims were “increasing dramatically” in the Nova Kasaba, Konjevic Polje and Sandici areas, posing a major logistical problem for the VRS.

The witness said that on July 13, around 1,000 prisoners were taken to the Kravica warehouse and executed the same day. That same night, around 2,000 Muslim men were brought to Bratunac, with more on their way.

“They outnumbered the VRS soldiers,” Butler remarked, adding that during the night, thousands of detainees were brought to Nova Kasaba and Konjevic Polje.

The witness described the situation in the area where the VRS Zvornik brigade had jurisdiction, saying that the army “had to solve a problem of bringing enough people to kill all the prisoners”.

Butler said that captured Bosniak men and boys were also killed in Pilica and Branjevo farm, and that the VRS was struggling to provide logistic support to remove the bodies.

He pointed at a document from the Zvornik brigade’s engineering unit, which indicated the kind of equipment needed for that task.

“This shows that they [VRS units] were acting under the military control and were involved in the burials,” Butler said.

Asked by Judge O-Gon Kwon whether the murders were ordered through the VRS chain of command, Butler responded, “They had to be.”

He added that it would have been clear to all VRS units that “these orders had to be executed, even though they were illegal”.

Dzenana Halimovic is an RFE and IWPR reporter in Sarajevo

Seselj Pleads Not Guilty to Contempt

By Velma Šaric

Serbian nationalist politician Vojislav Seselj appeared before the Hague tribunal this week in the third contempt case brought against him.

He entered a not guilty plea and demanded that judges let him address the Serbian public via a video link from his detention unit, ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections in the country on May 6.

Seselj remains leader of the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, based in Belgrade. His wife Jadranka is running for president as the SRS candidate.

Seselj has already been sentenced for contempt of court twice at the Hague tribunal. In the first case, he was sentenced to 15 months in prison for disclosing information about the identity of three protected prosecution witnesses in one of his books. In the second, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison for disclosing the identities of 11 witnesses.

In this latest contempt of court case, Seselj faces charges for failing to remove content from his website, including six submissions to the tribunal which have been classified as confidential. He also failed to remove four books he had written from the site. These books apparently contained information about protected witnesses who appeared in his trial.

Seselj entered a non-guilty plea in this contempt case on July 6 last year. However, he had to appear before the court this week, as the contempt charges against him had in the interim been extended, in view of his non-compliance with the order to remove these materials from the website.

Seselj’s son, Nikola, is subject to a similar order, and he sent a reply last August stating that the only orders he intended to comply with were those of his father.

The main trial against Seselj ended in March this year, and prosecutors requested a 28-year prison sentence because of what they said were “grave and heinous crimes”. The judges will announce their judgement at a later date.

Seselj is charged with nine counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity – including murder, torture and forcible transfer – for atrocities carried out in an effort to expel non-Serbs from parts of Croatia and Bosnia between August 1991 and September 1993. He is further accused of giving numerous inflammatory speeches and recruiting a force of volunteers who murdered, raped and tortured non-Serbs in both Croatia and Bosnia.

In addition, he is charged with being part of a joint criminal enterprise together with numerous high ranking Serb political, military and paramilitary wartime leaders, including ex-Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.

This week, in addition to entering a not guilty plea, Seselj used his appearance before the trial chamber to raise a number of matters relating to the contempt case. He said that he was planning to invite “a couple of witnesses” in addition to giving testimony himself.

He declared himself fit, despite complaining that his health was “worse day in, day out”.

In reference to his condition, the accused also told the judges that they “should hurry up with the proceedings before the French, British and Americans get to their final goal of getting rid of me”.

He explained that “western intelligence services were killing [him] softly”.

The accused also told the chamber that they reminded him of an “inquisition” and that it was “infamous” that a “writer had to be liable for the books he wrote”.

Referring to the request to remove the mentioned materials from his website, Seselj said that he would “never comply”.

“The last thing I would or could ever do to one of my creations would be to destroy it. And, to take off the books from the internet would mean that I would destroy them,” he said.

In addition, he repeated his often-stated claim that “the tribunal had no jurisdiction at all, since it was an illegal institution founded in an illicit way”.

Among the other issues he raised this week was a request to hold a press conference by video link on the eve of the Serbian elections.

“I request… the chamber to enable me to hold a video conference by video link on the occasion of the upcoming elections in Serbia,” Seselj said.

The accused stated that his “regular appearance” in public was of major interest to his political party.

Explaining his request, he added, “My political party, the Radicals, is running in these elections. I am heading the electoral list and my wife, Jadranka Seselj, is a registered candidate in the presidential elections.”

On the content of his planned address, he said, “I very dearly wish to explain to the fellow-citizens of Serbia why it is important to take the current regime out of power and prevent the victory of the traitor party of Tomislav Nikolic.”

He was referring to his former party colleague Nikolic, who left to form the Serb Progressive Party.

At that point Judge Trechsel, who will be presiding in this contempt case, interrupted Seselj, telling him that “such argumentation was not permissible at the tribunal”.

A date for the hearings in Seselj’s third contempt trial is yet to be set.

Velma Saric is an IWPR-trained reporter in Sarajevo

Palestinian Prisoners Hunger Strike Continues in Israel

On 17 April 2012 more than 1,200 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails began a hunger strike to protest against what they say is the harsh and degrading treatment received by detainees in Israel.

The protesters, who are accepting only water and salt, want practices such as prolonged solitary confinement and intrusive night searches of prisoners and their cells to be stopped. Further, they have asked for the relaxation of visiting rules, the re-instatement of the right to study for high school exams and university degrees and the abolition of the practice known as “administrative detention” which allows the Israeli military to arrest and detain individuals for prolonged periods without trial. The Financial Times’ Tobias Buck reported that at least 320 Palestinians are currently held as administrative detainees, some for several years. This number is confirmed by figures released by the NGO Palestinian Prisoners’ Club (PPC).

The head of the PCC, Qadoura Fares, has said that a large number of detainees had set a deadline at the end of the month for the Israeli authorities to meet their demands but the Israeli authorities refused to be pressed into concessions and instead responded on 23 April by curtailing visiting rights, confiscating items such as electronics, separating the protesters from inmates not taking part in the hunger strike. Amani Sarahna of the PPC said, “all the prisoners’ belongings were confiscated except their towels and their shoes”. She added that prison authorities had taken away the salt from those refusing to eat.

The debate over the practice of administrative detention was revived by prisoner Khader Adnan, a member of Islamic Jihad, who refused food for 66 days. Adnan, who was released on 17 April, has become a symbol of Palestinian resistance. He has recounted his experiences in an interview with al Jazeera.

According to Mr Fares the strikers are confident they can win the struggle: “In the past, 90 per cent of these strikes were successful. All the rights we have achieved [for Palestinian prisoners] so far were achieved as a result of hunger strikes – not because of the Israeli government.”

For further information, please see the following links:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/us-palestinians-israel-strike-idUSBRE83M0WX20120423

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0db974fe-8896-11e1-a727-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sxBKV1QR

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/04/18/3093121/former-palestinian-hunger-striker-released

Salzburg 2012 Summer Law School

The Salzburg Law School on International Criminal Law, Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law (SLS) welcomes applications for its Fourteenth Summer Session, Sunday 5 to Friday 17 August 2012, under the draft title:

“Enforcing International Criminal LawThrough the Complementarity Regime of the Rome Statute! Demand and Reality”

This year’s topical focus sets the ground for a critical assessment of the concept of the Rome Statute’s complementarity regime, its interpretation in the early jurisprudence of the Court as well as on national efforts to implement and prosecute core international crimes, with a special emphasis on situation countries. SLS 2012 will take up the debate on pertinent substantive issues, such as on the definition of the crime of aggression, the special intent requirement of genocide, the outer boundaries of crimes against humanity and future amendments to the Rome Statute. The first decade of the Court will be thoroughly analysed with a view to the powers and functions of the pre-trial chamber, the first ICC trial judgement, the question of immunities and cooperation issues. Lectures on Islamic law, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights as well as on other topics will offer further insights and familiarize the participants with latest developments in the fields of international criminal law, humanitarian law and human rights law. Last but not least, the ‘Salzburg Law School Trophy’ will provide an opportunity to engage in a practical pleading exercise.

The 2012 faculty consists of distinguished scholars and practitioners, among them, Dr.Mohamed Elewa Badar, Lecturer in Law, Brunel Law School; Gilbert Bitti, Senior Legal Advisor, International Criminal Court; Eleni Chaitidou, Legal Officer, Pre-trial Division, International Criminal Court; Roger Clark, Board of Governors Professor, Rutgers University School of Law; Dr. David Donat Cattin, Director, International Law and Human Rights Programme, Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA); Prof. Benjamin Ferencz, A former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor and frequent lecturer on international criminal courts and world peace; Prof. Charles Garraway, Associate Fellow at Chatham House, Visiting Fellow in the Department of Human Rights, University of Essex; Gillian Higgins, Barrister UK, International Criminal Law Bureau; Steven Kay, Queens Counsel, Barrister UK, International Criminal Law Bureau; Prof. Christoph Safferling, Professor of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, International Criminal and International Law, University of Marburg; Jennifer Trahan, Assistant Clinical Professor of Global Affairs at N.Y.U.; Astrid Reisinger Coracini, Lecturer, Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz; Prof. Otto Triffterer, Professor of Austrian and International Criminal Law, University of Salzburg;  Further details on the academic programme are available at www.salzburglawschool.com/programme.

Applications should be submitted online at <http://www.salzburglawschool.com/application> latest until 15 May 2012. For inquiries contact Astrid Reisinger Coracini at astrid.coracini@salzburglawschool.com

The Moving Judge and the Replacement Judge - Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal and Interference by the Government with the Legal Process

By Steven Kay QC

On 2 March 2012 the Bangladesh Law Minister Shafique Ahmed announced the need for a second war crimes tribunal to be established so “War criminals from other parts of the country will be brought to justice”. State Minister for Law Qamrul Islam described the intention thus: “Politics of fundamentalism will come to an end with the trial of war criminals”, see link:

http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=219422&cid=2

On 4 March 2012, Qamrul Islam reaffirmed that the second Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal would be open by the end of the month and that new rules facilitating the transfer of cases from one tribunal to the other were being formulated, see link:

http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=219509&cid=3

On 20 March 2012, Qamrul Islam on another visit to the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal announced the appointment of new Judges would be made soon and that the new tribunal would take on some of the cases from the other court, see link:

http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=220678&cid=3

On 25 March 2010, the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal was established with just three Judges elected to the bench under section 6 (1) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act 2010, to hear cases of international crimes committed during the 1971 liberation war that led to the creation of the State of Bangladesh. The first bench of Judges, who sit in the single courtroom available in the Tribunal in Dakkar consisted of:

- Justice Nizamul Haque Nasim (Chairman)

- District Judge A K M Zahir Ahmed

- Justice ATM Fazle Kabir

The Registrar of the Tribunal was a Md. Shahinur Islam, who established the infrastructure for the running of the court.

The 3 Judges at this Tribunal began to deal with the cases of the first 8 men arrested during 2010 and 2011 and started the first trial of a man named Delewar Hossain Sayedee (ICT-BD Misc. Case No. 01 of 2011) in October 2011. All the arrested men were members of either the opposition Jamaat Islaami and BNP parties. This is in conformity with the statement of Law Minister Qamrul Islam on 2 March 2012 to rid Bangladesh of alleged “fundamentalism”.

The second International Crimes Tribunal was announced on 22 March 2012 and started work on 25 March. It was reported on the 9 April that the Bangladesh Government with Sheikh Hasina the Prime Minister in the chair had approved a draft International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 2012, enabling the transfer of cases from one Tribunal to another as under the original ICTA 1973 there was no power to do so as the Cabinet Secretary Musharraf Hossein Bhuiyan explained, see link:

http://unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-73318

So we need to examine how the Government has achieved its stated objectives and whether the new measures are lawful or unlawful. The second Tribunal bench is composed of:

- Justice ATM Fazle Kabir (Chairman)

- Justice Obaidul Hasan

- Md. Shahinur Islam (Registrar ICT1)

This is the same Justice ATM Fazle Kabir originally serving as a judge in the first Tribunal and currently hearing the case against Delewar Hossain Sayedee, which is still at the stage of hearing the Prosecution evidence. The Defence case has yet to begin so he has been transferred in mid-trial of Sayedee. Under section 6(4) IC(T)A 2010, the removal of a Judge in the proceedings of a case is limited to strict circumstances:

“If any member of a Tribunal dies or is, due to illness or any other reason, unable to continue to perform his functions, the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare the office of such member to be vacant and appoint thereto another person qualified to hold the office (emphasis added)”.

These circumstances have not arisen in the removal of Justice ATM Fazle Kabir from the first International Crimes Tribunal as he is able to continue to perform his functions in the second Tribunal. It is apparent that it is more for the convenience of the Bangladesh Government who have prevented the continuance of his functions within the first Tribunal. The Government failed to provide any prior indication to the fact that a judge would be removed from the first Tribunal in mid-proceedings, thereby giving the Defence the opportunity to object and raise arguments against either the lawfulness of the move or whether it was fair and in the interests of justice. They also failed to place a notification in the official Gazette declaring Justice ATM Fazle Kabir’s office to be vacant, contrary to section 6 (4) IC(T)A.

The new judge appointed to replace Justice ATM Fazle Kabir in the Sayedee trial in the first Tribunal is Justice Anwarul Haque. He will be joining the trial not having heard nearly all the Prosecution witnesses give evidence, so it would be an impossible task for him to convict an accused in these circumstances, as he could never be sure of the quality of the case against Sayedee. We do not know if in fact Justice ATM Fazle Kabir was moved because he was inclined to acquit Sayedee, which of course is another possibility in this affair of the moving Judges.

The Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal actually prevents the Defence from being able to safeguard their rights or object to such machinations by prohibiting any right to interlocutory appeal in order for an independent appellate court to address these issues.

Direct Action Continues by William Browder against Russians Involved in Magnitsky Death

Who knew that what corrupt Russian officials care about, more than just about anything, is getting their assets — and themselves — out of their own country? They own homes in St. Tropez, fly to Miami for vacation and set up bank accounts in Switzerland. They understand the importance of stashing their money someplace where the rule of law matters, which is most certainly not Russia. Besides, getting out of Russia is one of the pleasures of being a corrupt Russian official.

As it turns out, a man named William Browder knows this. As does Senator Benjamin Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland. As do plenty of other senators, on both sides of the aisle.

As a result, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will likely report out a bill in the next few weeks that would force the State Department to deny visas, and freeze the assets, of Russian officials who are labeled “gross human rights abusers.” After that, it will be attached to an important trade bill that the Democratic-led Senate and the Republican-controlled House need to pass later this summer. Which would make it a rare and welcome moment of bipartisanship in this rancorous political season.

Browder’s involvement in this bill is deeply personal. His hedge fund, Hermitage Capital, was once the largest Russia-only fund in the world. But, in 2005, he was essentially run out of the country after criticizing, once too often, the theft of corporate assets by henchmen of Vladimir Putin, the Russian strongman. A small group of officials fraudulently “took over” his company, and landed a phony $230 million tax refund, which they pocketed.

The full article, entitled “Turning the Tables on Russia”, by Joe Nocera can be found on the New York Times website.