On 31 July 2009, ICC Trial chamber II rendered a decision on 345 applications for victim status to the proceedings in the case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. The Chamber decided that 288 persons are granted victim status in the case. The Chamber rejected 5 applications. One person had filled 4 applications and is granted the status of victim participating in the proceedings. For the remaining 40 applications the Chamber requires a number of additional clarifications to make a decision; applicants have until 24 August 2009 to file these clarifications.

The Chamber applied rule 85 a) and b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the criteria defined by the Appeals Chamber (ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, para. 61 to 65), namely: i) the applicant must be a natural or legal person; ii) that the person suffered a harm; iii) that the crime causing the harm falls within the jurisdiction of the Court and that the crime appears in the confirmation of charges; and iv) that there is a causal link between the crime and the harm.

The grounds for the decision were not disclosed in the document. These grounds will be communicated subsequently with an annex including the Chamber’s analysis of each application.

The trial in the Katanga-Ngudjolo case is scheduled to open on 24 September 2009.

The decision is available in French.

Since 2003, Darfur has been the scene of horrors committed by Sudanese President Al-Bashir, the Janjaweed militia and military forces. These massacres have been qualified as “intertribal collisions” or “actions led by autonomous criminal militia” with the pretext that this was part of a “conflict strategy against insurgence”: this is how Al-Bashir has been legitimizing the actions of his militia against civil populations.

On 4 March 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Al Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur–a decision welcomed by all human rights defenders as a step forward in the fight against impunity.

Meanwhile, the uproar over this decision from the African Union and those heads of state who refuse to cooperate with the Court is scandalous. The African Union supports Sudan in its challenge to the legality of the arrest warrant, arguing that a head of state has immunity according to article 27 of the Rome Statute, which has been ratified by 30 member states of the AU. The decision not to cooperate with the ICC which was made in Sirte was guided by political considerations and is incompatible with the Rome Statute’s obligation to cooperate. The African Union and its members states should have been the first ones to intervene and cooperate in order to deliver justice, all the more that these tragic events are happening on our continent. Furthermore, Botswana and South Africa have led the way by reaffirming their engagement to cooperate with the Court. The deafening silence of other member states is no longer tolerable. Justice and human rights have to take precedence over any solidarity with Bashir and his co-accused.

In addition, the fact that Sudan is not a State Party to the Rome Statute does not exclude the Court’s jurisdiction when a case is referred by the UN Security Council. As a result, all UN member states have a duty to cooperate with the Court. The argument that the arrest warrant for Al-Bashir is going to destabilize the country and worsen the situation in Darfur is baseless when you examine realities on the ground. All reports show that assassinations, rapes and the destruction of villages have decreased in Darfur since March 2009. Justice and the search for peace can go hand in hand and reinforce each other.

Although it is true that most situations before the ICC have a connection with Africa (with the exception of Darfur), these situations have been referred to the ICC by African states themselves: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. In fact, in the last two decades, Africa has witnessed the worst conflicts characterized by massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws.

Most African States have ratified the Rome Statute, vowing to punish crimes of concern to humanity and to lend support to the ICC in its fight against impunity. In order to be credible, they have to show their people and the rest of the world that their fight against impunity is not selective and that any individual who is accused of crimes under international law should face justice irrespective of their position.

Ndiémé DIENG is a law student at the Lille 2 University, France and an intern with the Senegalese Section of Amnesty International.

To translate this discussion into another language, click on the speech bubble icon on the bottom-right of the chat window.

Read more

Eugène Bakama Bope is the President of Club des amis du droit du Congo (CAD).

The 11th Anniversary of the Rome Statute comes on the heels of the heated, anti-ICC meeting of the African Union earlier this month in Sirte, Libya.

There, some African heads of state adopted a resolution suspending their cooperation with the ICC in retaliation for the Court’s arrest warrant for Omar Hassan

Ahmad Al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.This latest arm wresting over the ICC at the AU only draws attention to the fact that African governments—unlike their counterparts in Europe and Latin American—are not taking their obligations seriously when it comes to prosecuting grave crimes. For this reason alone, the role of the ICC is fully justified.

Europe experienced the Nuremberg trials. The Nazi collaborators continued to be judged up to the present day (see the latest trial of John Demjanuk who was transferred to Germany). In South America, there have been trials of the military junta in Argentina (trial led by current ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo).

What example has Africa set for prosecuting grave crimes in its national courts? Before blaming the ICC of unfairly targeting Africans, African governments would be wise to ask themselves what their own track record is for prosecuting atrocity crimes. More specifically, look at the Hissène Habré case: Senegal did not want to try him or extradite him, but Belgium asked for his extradition.

Recently, I was shocked by Senegalese President Wade’s hypocrisy. Wade, who organized the Hissène Habré case and was one of the first to speak out to the media following the issuance of warrant for Al-Bashir, has reportedly said the ICC only judges Africans. This comes at a time when his country has shown itself incapable of administering justice on its own soil and around such a critical trial.

The most heinous crimes are committed by state authorities, who, occasionally take over internal justice systems. It is one of the reasons to advance international justice.

Finally, there is room to question the prosecutor’s strategy. How, we can ask ourselves, after all these years of investigations can he still be so far from fingering those most culpable for the atrocity crimes in eastern DRC.

Clearly, both sides can do better.

Please Note: This is an unofficial translation by the CICC Secretariat from the original French.

Raj Kumar Siwako is the Secretary General of FOHRID, Human Rights and Democratic Forum in Kathmandu, Nepal. fohrid@wlink.com.np

Today, on 17 July 2009, representatives of the human rights community organized a peaceful sit-in program on the occasion of the International Justice Day and 11th anniversary of Rome Statute for 45 minutes today at Shantibatika, Ratnapark (Katmandu, Nepal). Participants of the sit-in, organized by Citizen’s Task Force to Combat Impunity, criticized the government for not acceding to the Rome Statute, especially given that the then-reinstituted Parliament passed a resolution to accede on 25 July 2006. NGOs present were vocal in their demand for the Government of Nepal to join the International Criminal Court at once as part of larger effort to establish a just society.
Read more

Erna Paris is the author of The Sun Climbs Slow: The International Criminal Court and the Struggle for Justice. Please visit her website at www.ernaparis.com - erna.paris@ernaparis.com

Back in 1990, the year before the Soviet Union imploded ushering in a new international order featuring a single superpower, the idea that one might soon (in historical terms) celebrate something called International Justice Day would have been laughable. Great powers set the rules. And they usually embraced impunity, at least for themselves.
Read more

Lucille Mazangue is a lawyer and human rights activist with the Association des Femmes Juristes in the Central African Republic (CAR)

11 years ago to the day, the ICC was created during a conference held in Rome. Some 120 governments came together to build a Court capable of trying individuals for the most serious crimes known to human kind: war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Read more

Christian Hemedi is the Coordinator of the DRC Coalition for the ICC and President of the Association for the Renaissance of Human Rights in the Congo (ARC-ONDH) arc_asbl@yahoo.fr
Beginning in 1998, the Democratic Republic of Congo found itself on the precipice of a war—sometimes referred to as the “African World War”—that would devastate the country and involve more than eight foreign armies. In July of the same year, the Rome Statute was born.
Read more

Julie Hotte was intern at the CICC Communications section.

The time is now for Central African Republic victims to obtain justice. Nearly six months after the confirmation of charges hearing against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, former leader of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), the International Criminal Court (ICC) decided to send him to trial

Looking back to that hearing, it interesting to see how each party tried to present its view on the allegations of crimes against Bemba.

The Prosecution tried to demonstrate Bemba’s responsibility in the commission of crimes allegedly perpetrated by his armed group, the Mouvement pour la Liberation du Congo (MLC): ” Jean-Pierre Bemba wanted to traumatize and to terrorize the population and to make them unwilling to support the rebels, and to do this [...], he chose rape as his main weapon”.

The Defense, by arguing that Bemba was not in the best position to stop such atrocities from happening because “he was not in a position to have perfect knowledge of the events”, implicitly acknowledged the commission of such crimes.

As for the legal representatives for the victims, they reminded the importance of justice not only for victims but also for sustainable peace asserting that impunity in the Central African Republic (CAR): “would not allow for durable peace because there is no peace if there is no justice”. They concluded that “the Court is the last resort for these victims”.

On 15 June, the ICC judges came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to believe that Bemba is criminally responsible as a military commander for the crimes committed by his troops from 26 October 2002 to 15 March 2003 in CAR. They decided to send him to trial. Earlier this year, ICC Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, reportedly explained to the media that Jean-Pierre Bemba could face an imprisonment of at least 30 years if found guilty.

The starting date for the trial has not yet been fixed and the numerous victims of these sexual acts of violence will still have to wait before being able to think of obtaining reparation, if such reparation is possible. Whether or not reparations are possible for the victims of Bemba’s crimes, one thing is for certain: these people will carry physical and emotional scars for the rest of their lives. Perhaps, the fact that Bemba is finally being brought to justice will give these victims a much needed step towards the long road to recovery.

The Lubanga trial in The Hague at the International Criminal Court (ICC) marks a fundamental turning point for international justice in the fight against impunity. The plight of child soldiers has been one of the serious concerns of the international community.

In the DRC, the issue of child soldiers has a been central concern for the Congolese government during the past decade. The first national law protecting children has just been adopted by the parliament in June 2008.

The Lubanga trial evokes mixed feelings in the Congo among human rights activists and local communities, including children. Many agree that the it is an unprecedented step, but others point out that peace has not come yet.
It is clear that for many people, there’s still a long way before they see peace and feel security: militias are still operating across the eastern part of the country, hundreds of children are reportedly recruited by armed groups despite the fact that Lubanga is at the trial.

This is an indication that people should have realistic expectations; the clear indicator of the impact of the Lubanga trial is the cessation of child recruitment by any parties in conflict in the DRC. But why are children still at risk of recruitment as child soldiers in the eastern DRC?
I think there are many reasons to explain this:
1. People still don’t make the connection between Lubanga and the crimes with which he’s charged: the priority is given to security over justice. Children in war zones being easy prey, they’ll be at risk.
2. Lack of trust in the ICC to be an independent justice institution: People still see the ICC as a western court, and Lubanga is being prosecuted as a scapegoat–at least according to some communities in or from Ituri and even outside Ituri.
3. The lack of domestic capacity to incorporate ICC crimes: although the DRC has a law protecting children against any abuses, domestic institutions are still too far behind to lead the fight against impunity.
4. The political climate is passive: there’s still a mentality of acquiring political power by military power.

Justifying the crimes for which Lubanga was arrested remains a hard sell for the Court’s outreach to local populations. The concept of a hierarchy of crimes remains in people’s minds. People still don’t feel the impact of child soldiering; in the Court’s outreach, it should be made clear that the impact is beyond the single child or his family. The duty to protect the child is not the sole responsibility of just his family or community, it is a duty for all people and institutions, and it is in that capacity that the ICC has the mandate.

The Lubanga trial should have given any child the hope that change is coming into their life. Human rights activists would agree that the Lubanga trial is the result of the engagement of the international community to hear the voices of the voiceless in the call for justice, but also we can agree that there’s a long way to go to achieve peace.
For the children, I think they would agree also that the International Criminal Court has given them the opportunity to use the power of their story, the power of their testimony, their experience to demand and obtain justice.
This is not yet concrete but in the few weeks or months ahead, this may well become a reality.

Bukeni T. Waruzi is a filmmaker and expert on child soldiers with WITNESS where he is Program Coordinator for Africa and the Middle East.

Watch the documentary video “The Lubanga Trial at the ICC” co-produced by Open Society’s Justice Initiative and WITNESS to inform the public about the trial here.