Africa

Kenya vs. The ICC Prosecutor

On August 30, 2011, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC), by a majority, rejected Kenya’s admissibility challenges under Article 19(2)(b) of the ICC Statute[1] in cases involving several Kenyans who allegedly perpetrated crimes against humanity during the December 2007 post-election violence.[2] The ICC’s denial of Kenya’s admissibility challenge is significant because this is the first time since the Rome Statute entered into force on July 1, 2002 that a State Party has challenged the Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over its nationals on the basis that the State Party itself is investigating the incidents at issue. Accordingly, Kenya has argued it should therefore be given time and space to do its own investigation before interference from the Hague-based court. This important judgment therefore merits some attention, which this case note aims to help provide.

Read full article (PDF)

[1] See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 19(2)(b), July 17, 1998, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 [hereinafter Rome Statute].

[2] Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey & Sang, Case No. ICC-01/09-01/11 OA, Judgment on the Appeal of the Republic of Kenya Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 Entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute” (Aug. 30, 2011), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1223134.pdf [hereinafter Appeals Chamber Judgment]; see also Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey & Sang, Case No. ICC-01/09-01/11 OA, Judgment on the Appeal of the Republic of Kenya Against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 30 May 2011 Entitled “Decision on the Application by the Government of Kenya Challenging the Admissibility of the Case Pursuant to Article 19(2)(b) of the Statute,” Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anita Ušacka (Sept. 20, 2011), http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/doc/doc1234872.pdf [hereinafter Dissenting Opinion].

Violence Mars Darfur Peace Treaty

Filed Under: Digest

On February 20th of this year, a major ceasefire treaty was signed between the Darfuri Justice and Equality Movement (Jem) and the government of Sudan. Jem is only one of the many militant groups in the Darfur region. However, it has presented a significant threat to the Sudanese government. President Omar al-Bashir had made the group a priority after it launched an attack against the strategically important city of Omdurman. The treaty included a possible power-sharing agreement and provisions for the return of refugees. It was welcomed by both the international community and groups with Sudan as providing a real chance for peace within the region.

However, less than two weeks after the signing of the treaty, there are reports that the Sudanese government has begun an offense against other rebel groups in Darfur. These clashes have given weight to demands by NGOs and other international observers that the central government include other militant groups in the peace treaty process. It is unclear whether such a proposal would be feasible, as Jem has threatened to leave the peace talks if other rebel groups are included. As a result, despite the new treaty, the prospects for peace in Darfur remain uncertain.

For further information, please see here, here, and here.

ICC Pre-Trial Chamber Declines to Confirm Charges Against Sudanese Rebel Leader

Filed Under: Digest

On February 7, a pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) unanimously declined to confirm charges against Sudanese rebel leader Bahar Idriss Abu Garda. Mr. Abu Garda is the first person to appear voluntarily before the court. He had been charged with being a direct or indirect co-perpetrator of several war crimes, including murder, attacks against a peacekeeping mission, and pillaging. All of the charges arose from his alleged involvement in an attack on Sept. 29, 2007, against the UN’s African Mission in Sudan (AMIS) in North Darfur. The Chamber found that while the allegations were sufficiently serious and while the personnel and installations associated with the AMIS peacekeeping mission were entitled to protection as civilians and civilian objects, the prosecution had produced insufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds that Mr. Abu Garda had participated in the attack.

The prosecution, led by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, had produced statements of anonymous witnesses. However, the Chamber found the statements to be of diminished probative value as they could not be directly challenged by the defense. The Chamber further found them to be “weak and unreliable due to the many inconsistencies,” and held that they failed to establish substantial grounds to believe that Mr. Abu Garda participated in any common plan to attack the AMIS mission. Further allegations that Mr. Abu Garda was himself involved in the attacks were found insufficient as the witness statements did not establish that he was present at the time of the attacks.

The Chamber’s decision not to confirm the charges presents yet another setback to the ICC’s efforts regarding the Darfur situation. The issue of Darfur was first referred to the Court by Security Council Resolution 1593 on March 31, 2005, following an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur. Of five defendants indicted in four separate cases relating to the region, four remain outside of the Court’s custody, including Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir. The charge of genocide against Mr. al-Bashir’s also failed to gain confirmation by the pre-trial Chamber, although the appeals Chamber recently ordered lower court to reconsider its decision in light of additional and previously disregarded evidence.

It is expected that, as in the al-Bashir case, the ICC prosecutor will again seek to appeal the pre-trial Chamber’s decision on Mr. Abu Garda.

For more information, please see the Court’s press release (here) and the Chamber’s decision (here).

ICTR Sentences Tea Executive for Role in 1994 Genocide

Filed Under: Digest

On November 5th, a three-judge panel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) sentenced Michel Bagaragaza, the former head executive of the Rwandan tea industry, to eight years in prison for his role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The ICTR, which presides in Tanzania, found Bagaragaza guilty on one count of complicity for his role in having substantially contributed to the death of 1,000 ethnic Tutsis. Bagaragaza’s sentence includes credit for time he has already served since his detention in 2005.

As director general of OCIR/The, the government office controlling the tea industry, Bagaragaza oversaw 11 tea factories employing approximately 55,000 people. In addition to his government position in the tea industry, Bagaragaza was also the vice-president of a bank and a political leader in Gisenyi prefecture. His role in the 1994 genocide arose when 1,000 Tutsis sought refuge at Kesho Hill and at Nyundo Cathedral in Rwanda’s Gisenyi prefecture, close to the tea factories Bagaragaza oversaw. On April 8, 1994, Bagaragaza met with Thomas Kuradusenge, a senior official of the Giciye commune, and learned of Kuradusenge’s plan to carry out the killing of the 1,000 Tutsi seeking refuge. According to prosecutors, Bagaragaza aided and abetted Kuradusenge in carrying out those killings, authorizing that vehicles and fuel from the tea factories Bagaragaza oversaw be used in the attack, and ordering that the attackers be provided with weapons Bagaragaza had allowed the army to conceal at the tea factories since 1993. Bagaragaza also ordered that personnel from the factories participate in the attacks, according to a summary of the tribunal’s judgment. On subsequent occasions, Bagaragaza gave Kuradusenge large sums of money for the purchase of alcohol, so as to encourage those carrying out the killings in the Kabaya and Bugoyi areas to continue to do so.

Bagaragaza was initially charged with conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, and in the alternative, complicity in genocide. On August 15, 2005, he voluntarily surrendered himself to the ICTR, pleading not guilty to each of the three counts listed in the initial indictment. Following procedural complications, he eventually pleaded guilty to the complicity charge in August of this year.

In sentencing, the judges noted that Bagaragaza had shown “genuine remorse for his actions,” providing “invaluable assistance to the Prosecution in its investigations.” They said that Bagaragaza had “to a remarkable degree contributed to the process of truth-finding with respect to the Rwandan tragedy and to national reconciliation.” The ICTR further noted that the defence had provided credible showing that Bagaragaza demonstrated no bias against Tutsis, and that his participation in the organization of the killings was likely motivated by concern for himself and his family. However, the court went on to state that the evidence did not suggest that Bagaragaza, “being a very resourceful person,” would have faced imminent danger had he not complied with the requests of the perpetrators.

Bagaragaza was represented by Counsel Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops from The Netherlands. The Prosecution was led by Wallace Kapaya, assisted by Patrick Gabaake, Mousa Sefon and Iskander Ismal.

The United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of the ICTR in 1994. An estimated 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in the genocide that began in early April of that year.

For further information, please see here and here.

Kimberley Process meets to combat conflict-diamond trade

Filed Under: Digest

The Kimberley Process (KP) held a Plenary meeting in Swakopmund, Namibia last week, where it adopted a work plan for the Marange diamond mining fields in Zimbabwe, agreed to monitor “conflict diamonds” from the Côte d’Ivoire following UNSC Resolution 1893 (2009), and made decisions on the general enforcement mechanism of the KP rules. The Democratic Republic of Congo will be the 2011 Kimberely Process Chair.

The KP initiative began after 2000 discussions between interested governments, the diamond industry, and members of civil society of how to combat “conflict diamonds,” which have been used to finance wars in Africa’s diamond-rich countries. By 2002, the KP adopted the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which requires participants to rigorously control diamond exports and imports and incorporate internal controls for the production and trade of diamonds. To ensure compliance, the KP requires statistical reporting on a regular basis in addition to other verification measures. With the Support of the United Nations and the European Community, the KP now has 49 Participants, with the members of the European Community counted together as a single member. The participants include all key centers for the production, polishing, and trade of diamonds.

The KP’s review of the Marange mining fields occurred as a result of recent reports suggesting non-compliance and human rights abuses. These reports followed the Zimbabwean government’s takeover of the fields during operation “Hakudzwoki” (no return) back in November of 2008. As a result, the KP adopted a double-track approach, using scientific measures to halt the flow of conflict diamonds from the area and sending a high-level KP envoy to the area. As part of the action plan adopted at the Swakopmund Plenary meeting, Zimbabwe agreed to bring mining into compliance with the KP so that the diamonds can be used for economic development rather than war.

For further information, please click here.

ICC: Darfur rebel chief’s hearing on confirmation of charges ends

Filed Under: Digest

The hearing on the confirmation of charges against suspected Darfur war criminal Bahr Idriss Abu Garda at the International Criminal Court (ICC) ended on October 30th.Abu Garda, 46, is a leader of the United Resistance Front (URF), a rebel group fighting against the Sudanese government. He is suspected of war crimes allegedly committed during the attack on the African Union peacekeeping mission at the Haskanita military base in North Darfur on September 29, 2007.The attack resulted in the death of twelve UN peacekeepers and serious injury to eight others. Abu Garda’s alleged crimes, which fall under article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, include murder, pillaging, and directing an attack against a peacekeeping mission.

Closing statements were made on October 29th and 30th. The Legal Representatives of the Victims emphasized that the orphans, widows, and survivors of the attack could never be truly compensated for their losses. “Victims will always be victims, but to see that justice is done will give them some comfort,” said Akin Akinbote, one of the victims’ four Representatives.

Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda alleged that Abu Garda was responsible for planning and executing the attack, in which 1,000 armed URF rebels attacked a base manned by African Union peacekeeping troops. The Prosecution further argued that their evidence established Military Group Site (MSG) Haskanita’s protected status under international law at the time of the attack, and that its personnel and property were entitled to the protection accorded to civilians. They noted that the Defence had presented no evidence to contradict this assertion.

Karim Khan, Abu Garda’s Defence counsel, argued that his client was not responsible for the September 29, 2007 attack on Haskanita. He also argued that Haskanita did not enjoy protected status when the attack occurred.

The court has 60 days from October 30th to determine whether the evidence against Abu Garda is sufficient for the case to go to trial. Abu Garda is the first alleged war criminal to appear before the ICC for crimes in Sudan.

For further information, please click here and here.