Europe

ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Russian Military Officers

By: Sarah Sandoval 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands – On March 5, 2024, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber II issued warrants for the arrest of two Russian military officers, arising from the ICC’s investigation into the ongoing situation in Ukraine.

 
The International Court of Justice located at The Hague. | Photo courtesy of ICC.
 

The Court issued arrests warrants for Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash and Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov regarding their involvement in attacks directed at civilian objects, causing excessive incidental harm to civilians, and inhumane acts. These offenses are in direct opposition to the Rome Statute, the treaty which governs the ICC. The Pre-Trial Chamber II, consisting of Judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala, Presiding, Judge Tomoko Akane and Judge Sergio Gerardo Ugalde Godinez, found that there are reasonable grounds that Kobylash and Sokolov are responsible for missile strikes against Ukrainian electric infrastructure from October 10, 2022 to March 9, 2023. These alleged missile strikes were carried out by forces under the command of Kobylash (Commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Aerospace Force at the time) and Sokolov (Commander of the Black Sea Fleet during the time of the strikes). The strikes were either directed at civilian objects, or the damage to civilians would have been clearly anticipated and excessive. 

In a statement released by the ICC, Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC says, “all wars have rules. Those rules bind all without exception.” Kobylash, a Lieutenant General in the Russian Armed Forces, and Sokolov, an Admiral in the Russian Navy, join only two others in the list of individuals with outstanding warrants arising out of the situation in Ukraine. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, also have outstanding warrants for the unlawful deportation of children and the unlawful transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. Both warrants were issued on March 17, 2023. 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the BBC that Russia does not recognize the ICC’s arrest warrants, as they are not under the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute. As such, it is unlikely that Kobylash and Sokolov will be extradited into the custody of the ICC.

For further information, please see: 

ICC – Ukraine

ICC – Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash and Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov – March 5, 2024

ICC – Statement by Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC on the issuance of arrest warrants in the Situation in Ukraine – March 5, 2024

ICC – Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – July 1, 2002

BBC – Russia-Ukraine war: Moscow ignores arrest warrants for Putin commanders – March 6, 2024

 

Nicaragua Files Application to Commence Proceedings in the ICJ Against Germany

By: Marya Al Khoury

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands – On March 1, 2024, the Republic of Nicaragua filed an Application commencing proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the Federal Republic of Germany regarding Germany’s aid and support of Israel.

 

 
The International Court of Justice, located at The Hague. | Photo courtesy of the ICJ.
 

In its Application, Nicaragua alleges that, by providing aid to Israel and defunding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, “Germany is facilitating the commission of genocide and, in any case has failed in its obligations to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide.” Such obligations, Nicaragua argues, stem from being a member to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Geneva Convention of 1949, and the basic rights afforded by general international and humanitarian law. Nicaragua claims that, by providing, political, financial, and military support to Israel, Germany is allegedly contributing the death, displacement, and starvation of Palestinians.

Though the ICJ has yet to render a determination on whether genocide has occurred, Nicaragua claims that there is, at the very least, a recognizable risk of genocide against the Palestinian population. Nicaragua’s claim against Germany is along a similar vein as South Africa’s case against Israel. Nicaragua, much like South Africa, is pursuing urgent provisional measures to be released by the Court while they await adjudication of the claim’s merits.  

The International Court of Justice has yet to set a date for this hearing. However, the ICJ usually sets hearing dates for emergency provisional measures within weeks of filing the case, and so, the Court is expected to set a date in the near future.   

For further information, please see:

AlJazeera – Nicaragua drags Germany to ICJ for ‘facilitating Israel’s genocide’ in Gaza – 2 Mar. 2024.

CNN – Top UN court says Israel must take ‘all measures’ to prevent genocide in Gaza but stops short of calling for ceasefire – 26 Jan. 2024.

CTV News – Nicaragua files case at World Court against Germany for aiding Israel – 1 Mar. 2024.

International Court of Justice – Application instituting proceedings and request for the indication of provisional measures – 1 Mar. 2024.

Reuters – Nicaragua files case at World Court against Germany for aiding Israel – 1 Mar. 2024.

UNRWA – UNRWA Situation Report #88 on the Situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Including East Jerusalem – 11 Mar. 2024.

 

European Parliament Passes Resolutions Addressing Human Rights Abuses in China, Sudan, and Tajikistan

By: Neha Chhablani

Visiting Impunity Watch News Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On January 18, 2024, the European Parliament adopted three resolutions regarding recent human rights violations in China, Sudan, and Tajikistan. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) condemned the repression of religious freedom in China, the ongoing conflict and resulting food insecurity in Sudan, and Tajikistan’s crackdown on independent media.

 
Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. | Photo courtesy of the European Federation of Journalists.
 

According to the European Parliament’s resolution, China has engaged in systematic persecution of the religious group Falun Gong since 1999. This includes frequent unwarranted detainment and reported exposure to psychological abuse, physical torture, and organ harvesting.

On May 12, 2023, Falun Gong practitioners Ding Yuande and his wife Ma Ruimei were arrested without a warrant. While Ma Ruimei was released on bail, Ding Yuande remained incarcerated for eight months before being sentenced to three years in prison. The European Parliament’s resolution called for the unconditional release of Ding Yuande and all wrongfully detained Falun Gong and the end of persecution of all religious minorities in China, including the Falun Gong, Uyghurs, and Tibetans. It implored EU member states to pursue punitive measures for entities contributing to religious repression in China. This included banishment from EU territories, imposing sanctions, refusing visas, freezing assets, and suspending extradition treaties.

Additionally, MEPs called for an immediate ceasefire between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, as their conflict continues to be the primary driver of food insecurity and other human rights abuses in the country. In Sudan, over 5 million people suffer from emergency levels of hunger and 7.5 million are internally displaced. Recent increases in attacks on Sudan’s Masalit community have raised the risk of ethnic cleansing.

In its resolution, MEPs strongly deplored the continuous attacks on humanitarian workers and civilians and the use of sexual violence in the conflict. MEPs asked international actors contributing to the war to refrain from interference. The resolution then called on the UN to expand their arms embargo on Dafar to the rest of Iran due to the use of alleged Iranian-supplied weapons in the war.

Finally, the European Parliament adopted a resolution addressing the declining role of independent media in Tajikistan, stating that “Tajikistan’s media are in their worst state since independence in 1991.” In the last two years, Tajikistan’s authorities have incarcerated several journalists for reporting on human rights abuses in the country. The two primary independent media outlets regularly face threats by government authorities, while other independent media sources are consistently shut down.

The European Parliament condemned Tajikistan’s regulation of its media, including the closure of websites, persecution of journalists, and politically motivated sentencing of government critics, human rights activists, and independent lawyers. The resolution called for the fair treatment of the prisoners, investigations into the conditions of their detainment, release for those wrongfully detained, a safe environment for independent media outlets, increased international support for independent media sources in Tajikistan, and increased monitoring of media repression in Tajikistan by international organizations.

European Union citizens directly elect MEPs, so the Parliament represents the general opinion of EU Member States. All three resolutions passed by a majority vote, underscoring the EU’s continued commitment to protecting global human rights. The Parliament instructed its President to forward the resolutions to the other EU institutions.

For further information, please see:

Aljazeera – US claims seizure of Iranian weapons bound for Yemen’s Houthis – 16 Jan. 2024

European Commission Press Corner – Sudan: EU commits €190 million in additional humanitarian and development aid – 19 Jan. 2024

European Parliament – Tajikistan: state repression against the independent media – 18 Jan. 2024

European Parliament – The ongoing persecution of Falun Gong in China, notably the case of Mr Ding Yuande – 18 Jan. 2024

European Parliament – The threat of famine following the spread of conflict in Sudan – 18 Jan. 2024

European Parliament Press Room – Human rights breaches in China, Sudan and Tajikistan – 18 Jan. 2024

European Parliament – Welcome to the European Parliament – 3 Mar. 2024

NPR – In South Sudan, People Are Dying Of Hunger As Civil War Continues – 21 Feb. 2017

ECHR Declares Detention of Youth Migrants in Hungary Arbitrary and Unlawful

By: Christina Bradic

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On February 22, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Hungary violated Article 5 § 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the right to liberty and security, by detaining two child migrants applying for asylum.

 
A migrant child is escorted by a police officer in Hungary. | Photo courtesy of Deutsche Welle.
 

The case, M.S. and S.B v. Hungary, involves two of 13 migrant children who were detained in Hungary in 2016. The minors were discovered during an inspection by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, a local NGO human rights organization and a member of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles. The organization’s concern was that the children were in prison-like facilities rather than the Children’s Home for Unaccompanied Minors in the town of Fót.

Both children were 16 years old. The first child, identified as M.H., was apprehended in May 2016 while illegally crossing the border on a route from Afghanistan into Hungary. He said he wanted to seek asylum and was fleeing from the Taliban. In the first interview, he lied about his age, fearing he would be separated from the community he was travelling with. Three days later, he produced his Afghan identity papers showing he was a minor. Authorities did not conduct translation or a physical age assessment. After reporting his age as 20 during a government interview, authorities told M.H. that he would have to cover costs of a physical exam to determine his age. He was detained for three months.

The second minor involved in the case, S.B., was also detained after illegally crossing the border. He was accompanied by a cousin, also a minor, and fled after his father and two cousins were killed by terrorist groups, who then threatened other family members. Authorities deemed him an adult and, like M.H., said he would be responsible for the costs for a physical assessment to determine his age. A few weeks into his detention he said he would pay the cost but was told the exam was not possible. He was detained for two months.

In both cases, the Kiskunhalas District Court in Hungary supported the continued detentions under the Asylum Act, specifically II (1)(d), which states that “the person seeking recognition in the absence of authentic documents suitable for identification shall be required to make best efforts for the clarification of his/her identity, thus, in particular, to contact his/her family members, relatives, legal representative, and – in the event of non-state or non-state linked actors of persecution – with the authorities of his/her country of origin.”

In ruling against Hungary, the ECHR said, “the court finds it particularly concerning that the domestic authorities, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicants and considering their best interests … presumed them to be adults simply on the account of their having changed their statements as to their age. They moreover placed the burden of rebutting that presumption on them … in disregard of the fact that for detained asylum-seekers, let alone children, obtaining the necessary evidence to prove their age could be a challenging and potentially even impossible task…”

In late January, the ECHR heard a similar case involving a youth migrant from Iraq, who Hungarian authorities forcibly deported back into Serbia. In that case, the court said, “the court cannot ignore that at the time of his removal, the applicant was an unaccompanied minor, and therefore in a situation of extreme vulnerability,” it added, noting that the age of asylum seekers “should take precedence” over the child’s status as an illegal migrant.

While refugee advocates and NGOs applaud the court’s decisions, policy in Hungary regarding unaccompanied minors continues to be scrutinized. This includes recent passage of the Act on the Entry and Stay of Third Country Nationals, a law that classifies migrants over 16 as adults and declares detention lawful.

For further information, please see:

European Court on Human Rights – Case of M.H. and S.B. v. Hungary – 22 Feb 2024

European Interest – The European Court of Human Rights ruled against Hungary for arbitrarily detaining unaccompanied children – 29 Feb 2024

Hungarian Helsinki Committee – The European Court of Human Rights condemns Hungary again, this time for the push-back of an asylum-seeking child – 23 Jan 2024

Jurist – ECHR rules Hungary authorities arbitrarily detained minors – 23 Feb 2024

ICJ Issues Preliminary Ruling on Jurisdiction to Hear Ukraine Genocide Claims

By: Johannah Brown

 Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands – On February 2, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a preliminary ruling in the Ukraine vs. Russian Federation regarding the interpretation, application, and fulfilment of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”). The Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to rule on whether or not Ukraine has committed genocide in the Donbas but ruled against Ukraine’s claim that Russia violated the terms of the Genocide Convention.  

 
International Court of Justice | Photo courtesy of Jurist, Wikimedia Commons.
 

Ukraine’s application to the ICJ, filed on February 26, 2022, stemmed directly from Russia’s actions in the eastern regions of Ukraine. Armed conflict began there in 2014 between Ukrainian forces and entities linked to Russia that refer to themselves as the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). On February 21, 2022, Vladimir Putin formally recognized the regions as independent states, justifying the move on claims that Ukraine was committing genocide. The following day Russia signed treaties with the DPR and LPR and two days later announced it would conduct a “special military operation” with the purpose of protecting the population from genocide.

In its filing, Ukraine, joined by 33 states as intervenors, accused Russia of violating the Article I and IV of the Genocide Convention by wrongly justifying its recognition of DPR and LPR and subsequent invasion on claims that Ukraine was committing genocide in the region.  In order to prove that Russia has acted in bad faith, Ukraine had also asked the court to determine if Ukraine has committed genocide.  

The Court first addressed the request for a determination by the Court that Ukraine did not commit genocide. Russia objected on several procedural grounds and the court rejected all of them.  Citing prior jurisprudence, it held that the ICJ had the ability to issue a declaratory judgement “to ensure recognition of a situation at law, once and for all and with binding force as between the parties, so that the legal position thus established cannot again be called in question…”

In addressing whether Russia violated Article I and IV of the Genocide Convention, the Court ruled that abusively invoking the Genocide Convention is not a violation of the obligations therein. The Court held that the actions taken by Russia based on the alleged abusive use of the Convention (falsely claiming prevention of genocide to justify actions) do not fall under the scope or ratione materia of the Convention but would be, if proven, a matter of violation of international law and not governed by the Genocide Convention. 

The case will go forward on the issue of whether or not Ukraine has committed genocide.

For further information, please see:

International Court of Justice – Judgement Ukraine v. Russian Federation in Allegations of Genocide – 02 Feb. 2024.

International Court of Justice – Summary of the Judgement of Ukraine v. Russian Federation in Allegations of Genocide – 02 Feb. 2024.

Jurist – ICJ Rules that it has jurisdiction over some of Ukraine’s genocide case against Russia – 03 Feb. 2024.

Lawfare – ICJ issues Judgment on Preliminary Objections in Ukraine v. Russia – 06 Feb. 2024.

United Nations – Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – 1951.