Tagged: International Criminal Court

ICC Prosecutor Requests Authorization to Investigate a Conflict in Georgia Involving Russia

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

The ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is seeking authorization to investigate possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed seven years ago in the context of a clash between Russia and Georgia. The conflict involves the effort by the former Soviet Union Republic Georgia to retain control of its region of South Ossetia.

In an October 13, 2015 Request for Authorization, the Prosecutor asks an ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I to authorize investigation of possible crimes within ICC jurisdiction committed between July 1 and October 10, 2008 in South Ossetia. In 2008, South Ossetian rebel forces took military action to gain independence, and Georgia responded with force to retain control. The Russian Federation sent military forces into South Ossetia to support the rebels. These forces then occupied South Ossetia during the time at issue.

After hundreds of people were killed and thousands of ethnic Georgians were forcibly displaced from their homes in South Ossetia, both Georgia and Russia maintained in the area troops designated as peacekeeping forces.

The Prosecutor’s Request for Authorization finds, pursuant to Rome Statute Article 15, a reasonable basis to believe that South Ossetian forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity relating to forcible displacement of ethnic Georgians, and that war crimes were committed by South Ossetian forces against Georgian peacekeepers and by Georgian forces against Russian peacekeepers.

The submission suggests that further investigation, if authorized, might implicate Russian nationals in criminal activity. It notes substantial military, financial, and other assistance provided by Russia to South Ossetia and states that available information indicates that South Ossetian forces could not have continued with forcible displacement of ethnic Georgians “but for the occupation of Georgian territory by Russian armed forces and the military advances that preceded the occupation.” Pointedly, “information available indicates that at least some members of the Russian armed forces participated” in war crimes relating to displacement. Related charges of crimes against humanity would require evidence that Russian military or governmental authorities pursued a policy of displacing ethnic Georgians. The report states that such evidence is lacking “at this stage.”

Authorization to investigate would represent the first time the ICC has addressed a conflict on the European continent as all other nine currently open situations before the ICC involve countries on the African continent.

ICC entry would also be bold because the ICC would be intervening on its own initiative into a conflict involving a major world power and in a situation where there is an “ongoing tense relationship between Georgia and the Russian Federation” noted in the report. As a State Party to Rome Statute, Georgia could have referred the matter to the ICC, but it did not. The Prosecutor is pursuing this matter on her own initiative, following up on her predecessor’s initiative to open a preliminary examination of the situation in Georgia in August 2008.

As a State Party, Georgia has accepted obligations set out in Part 9 of the Rome Statute to cooperate with ICC investigations. Russia did not ratify the treaty establishing the Rome Statute, but it did sign it, and Russia also acceded to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 18(a) of the VCLT requires a State that has signed a treaty “to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty.” Given the nature of the conflict at issue, however, the cooperation of the parties involved may be tailored to accord with partisan interests. The Prosecutor reports that she has engaged with, and received information from, authorities in Georgia and Russia. She cautions, however, that “[w]hen assessing the information in [her] possession, the Prosecutor has…taken into account the possible bias and interests from parties to the conflict, and has therefore primarily focused…examination on allegations corroborated by third parties.”

In support of her request for authorization, the Prosecutor notes receipt of requests from several possible victims of the conflict and from seven Georgian and international human rights organizations seeking justice for victims and punishment of the perpetrators.

An ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I must now decide whether to grant the request for investigation. If the Chamber does so, the ICC will enter a new and challenging phase in its work.

Related Readings:

Ukraine Expands Its Acceptance of ICC Jurisdiction

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

Violence in Ukraine has troubled that nation and the world community for about two years. Recently, Ukraine has renewed and expanded its efforts to afford the International Criminal Court jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those responsible for mass crimes committed on its territory. Ukraine is now alleging that Russia is responsible, in part, for such crimes.

Ukraine is not a State Party to the ICC’s Rome Statute. However, as written about in April 2014 post, Ukraine lodged an Article 12(3) declaration, which allows a non-Party State to accept the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes within its subject matter jurisdiction that are committed on the State’s territory. Ukraine’s 2014 declaration alleged that crimes against humanity were committed during internal strife in Ukraine between November 2013 and February 2014, responsibility for which it alleged was attributable to Ukraine’s former President and possibly other senior officials in his government. The ICC Prosecutor has been conducting a preliminary investigation regarding this matter but has not yet decided whether to seek authorization to open a formal investigation that would expand her investigative powers and allow for filing of charges against individuals.

Ukraine has now gone further. In a September 8, 2015 press release the ICC reported that the ICC Registrar acknowledged receipt of a second Article 12(3) declaration by Ukraine, in which Ukraine expands its acceptance of ICC temporal jurisdiction from beyond February 2014 to the indefinite future. Importantly, the declaration attributes responsibility for post-February 2014 war crimes and crimes against humanity to “senior officials of the Russian Federation and leaders of terrorist organizations.” Thus, Ukraine’s second declaration opens a politically potent issue, asking the ICC Prosecutor to conduct at least a preliminary investigation into Russia’s alleged involvement in the violence in Ukraine.

In its September 8 press release, the ICC noted that “[t]he provisions of Part 9 of the Statute relating to international cooperation and judicial assistance apply.” Part 9 of the Rome Statute imposes on State Parties the responsibility “to cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.” The Russian Federation, however, is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, and thus has no such responsibility to the ICC.

It will be interesting to see how this matter will develop.

ICC Confirms Case Against Simone Gbagbo

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On May 27, 2015, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a decision confirming that the ICC case against Ivory Coast national Simone Gbagbo is not jurisdictionally barred to the ICC because of efforts undertaken by Ivory Coast to conduct its own criminal investigations against her.

As discussed in our previous post, the ICC confronted a situation regarding the three Ivory Coast nationals for whom it issued arrest warrants, all of whom were charged with responsibility for alleged crimes against humanity (including murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and other inhumane acts) committed by supporters of defeated President Laurent Gbagbo against civilians in the aftermath of the Ivory Coast presidential election in November 2010. This violence resulted in the death of more than three thousand people.

Pursuant to the ICC arrest warrants, Ivory Coast (Côte d´Ivoire) authorities delivered Laurent Gbagbo and militia commander Charles Blé Goudé to The Hague for ICC prosecution on the crimes alleged in the warrants. But Ivory Coast refused ICC orders to deliver Simone Gbagbo and instead asserted that, pursuant to Articles 17 and 19 of the ICC Statute, her case was not admissible to the ICC on the ground that Ivory Coast was investigating and preparing to prosecute her.

After reviewing Ivory Coast’s arguments and supporting documents, an ICC Pre-Trial Chamber rejected the admissibility challenge because the Chamber determined that although Ivory Coast submitted evidence indicating that it was investigating Ms. Gbagbo for economic crimes, crimes against the State, and certain other matters, it was not prosecuting her for the crimes against humanity for which the ICC sought to prosecute her.

Ivory Coast appealed this decision in an effort to deny ICC jurisdiction over Ms. Gbagbo. In arguments to the Appeals Chamber, it employed several tactics, which included (1) submitting evidence of its investigative actions against Ms. Gbagbo that it undertook after the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision, (2) attempting to challenge several points made by the Pre-Trial Chamber not as factual findings but as legal rulings (which would require more exacting review by the Appeals Chamber), and (3) characterizing acts for which it was investigating Ms. Gbagbo as “preparatory acts” for crimes within ICC jurisdiction.

In addition to Ivory Coast’s arguments, the Appeals Chamber considered arguments by all other concerned Parties. Given the Pre-Trial Chamber’s findings that procedural activities undertaken by Ivory Coast judicial authorities were “sparse and disparate” and did not cover the serious matters that the ICC sought to prosecute, it is perhaps not surprising that Ms. Gbagbo advanced arguments “fully supporting the Appeal.” On the other hand, the ICC Prosecutor and the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (representing victims of the Ivory Coast violence) provided arguments supporting the ICC’s admissibility of the case.

In its May 27 decision, the Appeals Chamber rejected all of the arguments submitted by Ivory Coast and by Ms. Gbagbo and confirmed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision that the ICC case against Ms. Gbagbo is admissible.

In rejecting Ivory Coast’s submission of evidence of its investigations subsequent to the evidence it presented to the Pre-Trial Chamber, the Appeals Chamber stated that by making such submissions Ivory Coast was “attempt[ing] to seek a new ruling on admissibility, rather than a review of the proceedings before the Pre-Trial Chamber.” The Appeals Chamber noted that under Article 19(4), “[t]he admissibility of a case … may be challenged only once.” Accordingly, the Chamber held that Ivory Coast couldn’t use this additional information to support what would in effect constitute a second challenge to admissibility. However, an ICC press release reporting on the Appeals Court’s decision notes that Article 19(4) also states that “[i]n exceptional circumstances, the Court may grant leave for a challenge to be brought more than once.”

Ivory Coast became a State Party to the ICC in February 2013. Article 89 of the Rome Statute requires “State Parties [to] comply with [ICC] requests for arrest and surrender.” It will be interesting to see whether Ivory Coast complies with this obligation, or whether it seeks to make use of the “exceptional circumstances” provision to make a second challenge to the admissibility of this case.

U.S. Commission Calls for ICC Investigation of ISIL

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On April 30, 2015, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) issued its annual report on the condition of religious freedom around the world. In this report, the USCIRF recommends, among other things, that the U.S. Government call upon the UN Security Council to refer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) the widely publicized violence attributed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government advisory body created by Congress through the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). The USCIRF’s statutory mandate includes monitoring religious freedom conditions globally and making recommendations for U.S. policy. IRFA mandates that the USCIRF base such recommendations on international human rights instruments such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and the Helsinki Accords.

The USCIRF’s 2015 annual report, which covers the period from January 31, 2014 through January 31, 2015, addresses troubling humanitarian issues in 33 countries. The report gives special attention to abuses committed in Syria and Iraq by forces associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It states that in both of these countries “ISIL has unleashed waves of terror upon Yazidis and Christians, Shi’a and Sunnis, as well as others who have dared to oppose its extremist views.” The report charges ISIL with responsibility for summary executions, forced conversions, rape, sexual enslavement, abduction of children, and destruction of houses of worship.

Based on these findings, the USCIRF recommends that the U.S. Government “call for or support a referral by the UN Security Council to the [ICC] to investigate ISIL violations in Iraq and Syria against religious and ethnic minorities, following the models used [by the Security Council] in Sudan and Libya.”

The USCIRF’s report and recommendations regarding ISIL (aka ISIS) are in substantial accord with the published statements of the ICC Prosecutor. As written about previously, the ICC Prosecutor has expressed her grave concern about ISIL, while noting that in the absence of a Security Council referral, her office’s ability to investigate ISIL’s activities is limited by the ICC’s jurisdictional requirements.

Related Readings:

  • U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report (2015).

The ICC Prosecutor Addresses Allegations Against ISIS

POST WRITTEN BY: Prof. Peter Widulski, Assistant Director of the First Year Legal Skills Program and the Coach of International Criminal Moot Court Team at Pace Law School.

On April 8, 2015, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda issued a statement responding to inquiries her Office has received regarding the widely publicized violence attributed to armed forces acting on behalf of the military and political organization known as ISIS. She noted that such violence is reported to include

mass executions, sexual slavery, rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence, torture, mutilation, enlistment and forced recruitment of children and the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, not to mention the wanton destruction of cultural property.

The International Criminal Court is the only standing international criminal court available to investigate and prosecute crimes of an international character (such as those attributed to ISIS) when such crimes are not investigated and prosecuted by national courts. However, as a treaty-based institution, ICC jurisdiction is limited by rules consented to by State Parties relating to the alleged crimes at issue (subject matter jurisdiction) and to territorial and other requirements.

On August 15, 2014, the U.N. Security Council, acting under its Chapter VII powers took measures with respect to international peace and security and adopted S/RES/2170 (2014), condemning ISIS and other groups “for ongoing and multiple criminal terrorist acts aimed at causing the deaths of civilians and other victims, destruction of property and of cultural and religious sites, and greatly undermining stability.” Res. 2170 calls on U.N. Member States to take measures to interdict the flow of funding and recruits to ISIS. The Security Council has not as yet, however, referred the matter of ISIS-related violence to the ICC, as it could do under Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute.

The crimes allegedly committed by ISIS are of a scale and nature that would likely meet the ICC subject matter jurisdiction requirements – at least for initiating a preliminary investigation by the Prosecutor. However, that by itself is not sufficient to allow the Prosecutor, acting on her own initiative, to pursue an investigation. In the absence of a Security Council referral, either territorial jurisdiction (the alleged crimes were committed on the territory of a State Party) or personal jurisdiction (the alleged crimes were committed by a national(s) of a State Party) would need to be met.

The crimes alleged against ISIS were reported to be committed on the territory of Syria and Iraq, neither of which is an ICC State Party. Either country could nevertheless lodge an Article 12(3) declaration allowing the ICC to investigate, but at this point, neither has done so. Therefore, territorial jurisdiction is currently lacking.

As to the other alternative, the Prosecutor stated that she has information that “significant numbers” of ISIS fighters are nationals of ICC State Parties, including Tunisia, Jordan, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia. She noted that some of these individuals may have committed crimes within the ICC’s subject matter jurisdiction. She noted also, however, that the information available to her Office indicates that the leadership of ISIS is composed primarily of nationals of the non-Party States of Iraq and Syria. Accordingly, given the OTP’s policy to focus on those most responsible for the commission of mass crimes, the prospect of exercising personal jurisdiction over any nationals of State Parties “appears limited” and “the jurisdictional basis for opening a preliminary examination into this situation is too narrow at this stage.”

Noting that “ISIS continues to spread terror on a massive scale in the territories it occupies,” the Prosecutor stated that she “remain[s] profoundly concerned by this situation” and that she will continue efforts, in consultation with relevant States, to gather further information. She emphasized the international community’s “collective duty … to respond to the plight of victims whose rights and dignity have been violated.”