Special Features

Voices for Sudan Condemns Arrest & Planned Deportation of El Doud

Voices for Sudan Condemns the Arrest & Planned Deportation of El Doud 
September 7th 2015, Washington DC. Voices for Sudan strongly condemns the arrest and planned deportation of El Doud as a disrespect for, and violation of his fundamental human rights. On 23rd July 2015, a Sudanese journalist Alwaleed El Doud was arrested at his home in Saudi Arabia by Saudi security forces, and later transferred to Ma’aloumat Prison in Dammam, the seat of the judicial and administrative bodies of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. This transfer was confirmed by Journalists for Human Rights (“JHR”), an international organization that reports on human rights violations. Jimmy Mulla, President & Co-founder of Voices for Sudan, says VFS is deeply concerned about the hardship that El Doud is likely to be subjected to if deported to Sudan (as desired of the Sudanese security agencies). Mr. Mulla states that VFS has taken steps to create public awareness of this issue, and has reached out to the U. S. Department of State, Human Rights Watch & international human rights organizations with the hope that immediate action will be taken to free Alwaleed El Doud. It is believed that the Saudi government plans to deport El Doud to Sudan because of the recent improvement in diplomatic relations between the two countries. This creates great anxiety among El Doud’s family, friends, and public interest groups because a deportation exposes him to the risk of arrest and abuse by the Sudanese government. Prior to his arrest, Alwaleed had received many threats of torture and death from Sudan’s National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS). In a press statement, the JHR asserted that based on its confirmed reports, El Doud is the target of the NISS and is to be arrested for administering the website www.alrakoba.net. Hanadi Elhadi, VFS communications & outreach coordinator spoke with the wife of the Alwaleed El Doud who confirmed that there seems to be no movement as to the fate of her husband. VFS is in contact with family members, relatives and friends of the journalist. While El Doud continues to be held behind bars, he is yet to be charged with any offense. The crime committed? Not stated. His laptop computer and international passport were also said to have been confiscated. El Doud has lived in Saudi Arabia for over 10 years and he confirmed that his immigration status is not in question. Alrakoba, an independent news website administered by Alwaleed Ed Doud, was created as a dialogue forum in 2005. The forum transformed into a news website in 2006 the site exposed various cases of human rights abuses, corruption and bad governance of the government of Sudan. Daring to expose and condemn the ills of the government of Sudan seems to be the “wrong” which has been committed by El Doud. Voices for Sudan further uses this medium to request private individuals, businesses, civil society organizations, and national governments to condemn this continued abuse of state power and gain freedom for Alwaleed El Doud. For any clarification and more information, please contact Voices For Sudan Communications & Outreach Coordinator, Hanadi Elhadi at: ehanadi@voicesforsudan.org

Press Release: U.S./Belgian Citizen Arrested for his Alleged Participation in the Trade of Blood Diamonds during Sierra Leone’s Civil War

Michel Desaedeleer, American and Belgian citizen, was arrested in Spain this week, pursuant to an European arrest warrant. He is suspected of having participated, with former Liberian President Charles Taylor and the Sierra Leonean rebels of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), in enslavement as a crime against humanity and pillage of “blood diamonds” as a war crime in the district of Kono in the Eastern part of Sierra Leone between 1999 and 2001.

Several citizens of Sierra Leone, victims of enslavement during the civil war, filed in Brussels in January 2011 a criminal complaint against Mr Desaedeleer who residesin the United States. They are represented by the Belgian lawyer Luc Walleyn. This complaint prompted the Belgian authorities to formally open an investigation, which culminated in the issuance of a European arrest warrant against Mr Desaedeleer in 2015. The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) in Freetown, Sierra Leone, and Civitas Maxima (CM) in Geneva, Switzerland, have been working in partnership for several years on this case to document crimes and assist the victims to obtain justice.

During the civil war in Sierra Leone (1991-2002), the RUF used civilians as slaves in the district of Kono to mine in the diamond pits. The proceeds of the forced labor were brought to Charles Taylor in Monrovia, Liberia, and then sold on the international market.

This is the very first time that a businessman has been arrested for his alleged involvement in the international crimes of both pillage of blood diamonds and enslavement of civilians.

Ibrahim Tommy, Executive Director of CARL, said today from Freetown: This is another significant step forward in our collective efforts at ensuring accountability for the crimes that occurred during the conflict in Sierra Leone. No one should be allowed to get away with participating in serious offenses such as enslaving people and forcing them to mine for diamonds. This case will also help to shed light on the otherwise discreet drivers of the infamous ‘blood diamond’ trade in Sierra Leone”. Alain Werner, the Director of Civitas Maxima added in Geneva: “This is a landmark case, the first of its kind, and it will help to raise awareness of the pivotal role played by financial actors in the trade of mineral resources that fuel armed conflicts in Africa and elsewhere”.

Contact:

Ibrahim Tommy in Freetown
info@carl-sl.org
ibrahim.tommy@gmail.com
+232 76 365 499

Alain Werner in Geneva
alain.werner@civitas-maxima.org
+41 79 194 5957

Opinio Juris: A Complementarity Challenge Gone Awry– The ICC and the Libya Warrants

By Jennifer Trahan

[Jennifer Trahan is an Associate Professor, NYU, Global Affairs Program and Chair, American Branch of the International Law Association, International Criminal Court Committee.]

On July 28, 2015, a domestic court in Libya announced death sentences against Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and Abdullah al Senussi, who served as intelligence chief. In total, 32 former Gaddafi-era officials were convicted, including 9 who were sentenced to death. Yet, observer accounts suggest the trials were deeply flawed, lacking key fair trial protections. The possibility that Libya will carry out the death sentences is clearly of huge concern to the defendants, but should also be of concern at the International Criminal Court.

On February 26, 2011, the UN Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court. The Court originally issued 3 warrants for crimes committed during the 2011 uprising, against Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, and Abdullah al Senussi, charging them with murder and persecution as crimes against humanity. The case against Muammar Gaddafi was terminated after his death.

Initially at issue in both the Saif Gaddafi and al Senussi cases was whether they should be tried in Libya or at the ICC, as the ICC will only try cases where national courts are “unwilling” or “unable” to conduct the trials. The Court ruled that Saif needed to be tried at the ICC, whereas al Senussi could be tried in Libya, as he was the subject of domestic proceedings and the ICC deemed Libya “willing” and “able” to carry them out. The ICC Appeals Chamber affirmed both rulings.

Yet, despite the ruling that Saif should be tried in The Hague, he was never surrendered, and remains in Libya. His situation is complicated by the fact that he is not held by any governmental authorities, but the “Zintan” militia.

As to al Senussi, this Author thinks the Court erred in its decision. The problem with the criteria of “willing” and “able” (or that a national court is not “unwilling” or “unable” to try the accused, as it is phrased in article 17 of the Rome Statute), is that it generally ignores an equally problematic third possibility – that a national court is “all too willing” to try someone (i.e., the situation of “overzealous” national proceedings). This is a situation one can certainly anticipate any time there has been a regime change and the new government wants to “get” at officials of the past regime – in other words, potentially the situation here. The rush to justice resulting in the Saddam Hussein execution is another example.

Human Rights Watch reports that al Senussi was denied adequate time to prepare his case, and adequate assistance of counsel. Saif, who was not even present for his trial, was apparently denied both these protections, and, additionally, while trials in absentia are permitted in Libya, the procedural safeguards required for them were apparently not provided. While the death penalty is permissible under Libyan law (and its imposition alone does not necessarily mean the trials were unfair), more and more countries categorically oppose the death penalty. At minimum, where it is a possible punishment, it is especially important that fair trial guarantees are scrupulously observed.

Should this turn of events be of concern to the ICC? Indeed.

Saif was supposed to be tried at the ICC, and he could end up executed in Libya. As a result of the ICC’s rulings, a “green light” was given to al Senussi’s trial in Libya, which has also resulted in a death sentence. If the sentences are affirmed on appeal and carried out, the ICC will have played a role in allowing two executions based on trials suspected of serious due process flaws.

There is still a chance for an appeal in Libya. Libya’s Supreme Court should independently and fairly review the verdict, particularly with a view to due process. But in the mean time, more pressure should be put to bear to ensure that Saif is transferred to The Hague (where he should have been all along), and al Senussi’s counsel should move to reopen the admissibility challenge based on newly discovered information (the events in Libya), or the ICC Prosecutor’s Office should do so.

The Appeals Chamber did leave an opening in its July 24, 2014 ruling (.pdf), suggesting that it would not utterly ignore due process violations by a national court, suggesting some concerns of an “all too willing” or “vengeful” national court:

It is clear that regard has to be had to ‘principles of due process recognized by international law’ for all three limbs of article 17(2), and it is also noted that whether proceedings were or are ‘conducted independently or impartially’ is one of the considerations under article 17(2)(c). . . . As such, human rights standards may assist the Court in its assessment of whether the proceedings are or were conducted ‘independently or impartially’ within the meaning of article 17(2)(c).

To the extent the Appeals Chamber also suggested the national proceedings would have to be “completely lack[ing in] fairness” such that they fail to provide “any genuine form of justice,” before the ICC can be the proper venue, the Judges are setting the bar too high. (Alternatively, it is conceivable that, upon further inquiry, one might find even that bar met.)

It is true that the drafters of the Rome Statute specifically rejected making the lack of due process a ground for admissibility. Yet, the precedent they were dealing with at the time – the experiences of the ICTY and ICTR, where “unwilling” and “unable” trials respectively were the concern – simply do not reflect what has become the experience of the ICC. Moreover, it is quite possible –as the Appeals Chamber has done — to read a “due process” component into the language of article 17 of the Rome Statute.

Based on the events in Libya—flawed proceedings that suggest a lack of impartiality—the Court should now find the al Senussi case “admissible” at the ICC and order him transferred. If that happens, individual states and the UN Security Council should be prepared to help ensure the transfer actually happens.

These may not seem the most significant cases the ICC has on its docket (they probably aren’t), but it would be a bleak day if the ICC (and the UN Security Council) stand by and let these death sentences be carried out on cases that stemmed from the Security Council’s referral, and as to which the ICC was involved.