ICC Rights Watch

ICC Presides Over Sudanese War Crime Case

By: Rachel Wallisky

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The International Criminal Court (ICC) will review war crime charges out of Sudan in The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman. Ali Muhammad Abd-Al-Rahman, also known as Ali Kushayb, allegedly committed over 30 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity between August 2003 and April 2004 in Darfur, Sudan. The charges stem from his role as Senior Leader of the Militia, also known as Janjaweed in Sudan, where those forces carried out a widespread and systematic attack against civilians living in Wadi Salih, Sudan.

 
Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, pictured in court | Photo Courtesy of the ICC
  

The ICC confirmed the charges against Abd-Al-Rahman, stating, “[t]his attack was carried out pursuant to, and in furtherance of, a State policy to commit an attack against the civilian population in the Wadi Salih and Mukjar Localities…predominantly against civilian members of the Fur tribe.” The charges include: intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such, as a war crime, murder as a crime against humanity and as a war crime, pillaging as a war crime, destruction of the property of an adversary as a war crime, other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime.

The trial began back in April 2022, when the prosecution began presenting its case. The prosecution presented fifty-six different witnesses and finished presenting its evidence on June 5, 2023. The defense presented its opening statement on October 18, 2023. The defense team argued that Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman is not the man that the ICC is looking for and plans to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction over the case.

On September 15, 2023, the defense submitted a request to admit Ms. Fiona Marsh as an expert witness. The motion argues that Ms. Marsh will testify about two questioned signatures on documents presented in the prosecution’s case. The defense argued that the signatures on two documents submitted by the prosecution were not actually written by Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman, and that “[h]er expert evidence will assist the Chamber by providing the necessary material for it to arrive at a reasoned finding on the authorship of the two questioned signatures.” The Court has not, as of yet, issued a decision on the motion.

The fallout from this attack has continued for twenty years until today. When advocates for the victims of this attack spoke on June 5, 2023, they highlighted the similarities between the situation from 2003-2005 and the present-day situation in Sudan. Given the relationship between the current situation in Sudan and the crimes that Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman is alleged to have been part of, as well as the defense’s theory that Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman is not the leader of the Janjaweed, it will be interesting to track the defense’s arguments as the case progresses.  

For more information, please see:

ICC – Case Information Sheet – The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al Rahman, March 2022.

ICC – Corrected version of ‘Decision on the confirmation of charges against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (‘Ali Kushayb’)’ – 9 July 2021.

ICC – Defence Request to Admit Ms. Fiona Marsh as an Expert Witness – 15 Sept. 2023.

ICC – “Opening Statement and presentation of evidence by the Defence in the Abd-Al-Rahman case: Practical information” – 9 Oct. 2023.

ICC – Transcript of Proceedings – 5 June 2023.

ICC – Defense Responds to Prosecution’s Request for In Absentia Confirmation of Charges in Kony Case

By: Nikolaus Merz
Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Following a procedural stay, the Office of Public Counsel for the Defense (“OPCD”) has submitted its response to the Prosecution’s request to hold an in absentia confirmation of charges hearing in the case against Joseph Kony.

Joseph Kony faces 12 counts of Crimes Against Humanity, and 21 counts of War Crimes. If convicted, Mr. Kony’s case would be among the longest in international criminal history. Photo courtesy of Reuters.

The Prosecution’s unprecedented request was filed in November of 2022, and would seek to expand the scope of the International Criminal Court’s (“ICC”) procedural authority.

The Prosecution justified it’s request due to the extraordinary circumstances of Mr. Kony’s case. First, despite concerted efforts of multiple nations, including the deployment of armed forces and money rewards, Mr. Kony’s whereabouts have yet to be discerned. Second, Mr. Kony has remained at large for almost two decades, making him the second longest suspect at large of any international criminal court or tribunal. Third, the Prosecution points out the myriad of policy and judicial interests that would be advanced, including rights of victims, the galvanization of justice, and applicability to similar future circumstances.

The OPCD has responded to the Prosecution’s request with a broadside attack, raising numerous defenses against each of the Prosecution’s arguments. In general however, the OPCD raised two broad theories against the Prosecution’s request.

First, the OPCD argued the Prosecution misinterpreted the procedural justification for its request. The foundational treaty of the ICC, the Rome Statute, allows for in absentia confirmation of charges in two circumstances under Article 61(2)(a) and 61(2)(b). Article 61(2)(a) involves a situation where a defendant waives their right to in-person confirmation and is not relevant here. However, Article 61(2)(b) allows for in absentia confirmation in situations where the defendant “Fled or cannot be found…” and is the supporting procedural clause the prosecution used for its request.

According to the OPCD, the Prosecution has misinterpreted 61(2)(b) to mean simply any situation where a defendant cannot be apprehended or found. However, the structure of the Rome Statute, the intention of its drafters, and academic treatises indicate that 61(2)(b) is only meant to apply after an initial appearance by the defendant before the Court. Or, in other words, 61(2)(b) is meant to apply when a defendant has escaped ICC custody in an intermediary period between initial appearance and confirmation of charges.

In addition, the OPCD also argued that no reasonable efforts had been made to notify Mr. Kony of the charges against him. This argument is also based on interpretation of 61(2)(b) which differs from the prosecution. While 61(2)(b) allows for in absentia confirmation in cases where a defendant has fled or cannot be found, it also requires that reasonable efforts have been made to inform the defendant of the charges against them. The OPCD has argued that the only way for Mr. Kony to be made reasonably aware of the charges against him is to re-issue his arrest warrant and to broadcast it for a designated period of time.

Secondly, the OPCD argued that the Prosecution failed to carry its burden in showing that the circumstances of the Kony case were extraordinary enough to warrant in absentia confirmation of charges. The OPCD argued that the Prosecution gave no evidence to show that in absentia confirmation would support the policy considerations it put forth. Further, the OPCD argued that an extensive period of time to apprehend a suspect does not, by itself, demonstrate cause for in absentia confirmation of charges. Lastly, the OPCD pointed out that judicial and victim considerations had already factored into the Kony case in previous motions and decisions.

It should be noted that the representatives of the victims contacted the surviving victims regarding the Prosecution’s request; they were in unanimous support.

At present, it is uncertain if the ICC will support the Prosecution’s request. While the OPCD made compelling arguments, it is more likely that the Court will be considering the precedential ramifications of its decision more than anything. As the Prosecution stated, there would be potential to use in absentia confirmation of charges in similar future circumstances. To address the elephant in the room, a ruling in the Prosecution’s favor could raise uncomfortable questions for the Court regarding the situation of Mr. Putin, whom the ICC issued an arrest warrant for on March 17th 2023.

For further information, please see:

ICC – OPCD Observations on the Prosecution’s Request to Hold a Hearing on the Confirmation of Charges against Joseph Kony in his Absence – 30 Mar. 2023

ICC – Public Redacted Version of the “Prosecution’s Request to Hold a Hearing on the Confirmation of Charges against Joseph Kony in his Absence” – 24 Nov. 2022

ICC – Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova – 17 Mar. 2023

ICC – Victims’ Views and Concerns on the “Prosecution’s Request to Hold a Hearing on the Confirmation of Charges against Joseph Kony in his Absence” – 30 Mar. 2023

Reuters – ICC prosecutor seeks to revive case against fugitive Kony – 24 Nov. 2022

Despite Newly Passed Avenues for Support to the ICC, the Biden Administration and Pentagon are at Odds in Determining Which Documents to Provide the ICC regarding Putin’s Actions in Ukraine

By: Patrick Farrell

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – As previously reported by Impunity Watch News, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin’s arrest due to his role in the atrocities perpetrated during Russia’s war in Ukraine. The public issuing of the warrant was heralded as a significant step for two major reasons. First, in deterring further crimes in Ukraine, and second, widespread support for the indictment has been characterized as a win for the basic principles of humanity. Yet, the Kremlin has directly condemned the ICC’s actions, labeling them as “outrageous and unacceptable” and even rejected the warrant. Given this response, the ICC is now in need of support for the investigation and eventual prosecution. With that said, the Biden Administration is currently at odds with the Department of Defense in determining the nature of the evidence that the United States will share with the ICC regarding Russian atrocities in Ukraine.

The International Criminal Court. Photo courtesy of Dmitry Kostyukov for The New York Times

Following a National Security Council cabinet-level principals committee meeting on Feb. 3, President Biden has yet to make a decision to resolve the dispute. Although President Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, he never sent it to the Senate for ratification, thus leaving the United States as a non-party to the Treaty. Further, in 1999 and 2002, Congress enacted laws that limited the support that the government could provide the ICC. However, following the bipartisan push to hold Putin accountable, Congress returned to the question of whether to help the ICC. Pursuant to regulations passed by Congress in December 2022, exceptions now exist that allow the U.S. Government to assist with “investigations and prosecutions of foreign nationals related to the situation in Ukraine.” These new laws, including the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, and the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act contain new elements highlighting the importance attached to supporting accountability for those responsible for atrocities such as these. Most importantly, the amendments in the Consolidated Appropriations Act allow the United States to provide assistance to the ICC Prosecutor’s efforts in Ukraine, even regardless of whether accusations have been made.

Despite these new powers, the Pentagon has maintained the position that the United States should remain separate from the ICC and that the Court should undertake its own investigation, especially since neither the United States nor Russia are parties to the Rome Statute.

Even amidst these internal tensions, national security experts and other government officials see an opportunity in using the ICC as a tool for enforcing accountability. According to John Bellinger, a lawyer for the National Security Council, the U.S. can assist in investigating and prosecuting war crimes by assisting the ICC, which is the successor to the Nuremberg tribunals. In addition, both Senator Lindsey Graham and Attorney General Merrick Garland have reiterated their commitment to helping Ukrainian prosecutors pursue Russian war crimes.

Even after modifications to longstanding legal restrictions which previously stifled America from aiding the ICC, a dispute now exists over whether the U.S. should provide such evidence. Still, it is hopeful that U.S. officials will come to a solution to assist the collaborative effort to bring justice for Russian atrocities committed in Ukraine.

For further information, please see:

Beatrice Nkansah, Impunity Watch News – ‘ICC’ Issues Warrants for Putin’s Arrest Regarding His Role in Russia’s War in Ukraine – 23 Mar. 2023

CNN – ICC issues war crimes arrest warrant for Putin for alleged deportation of Ukrainian children – 17 Mar. 2023

The New York Times – Pentagon Blocks Sharing Evidence of Possible Russian War Crimes With Hague Court – 8 Mar. 2023

Just Security – Unpacking New Legislation on US Support for the International Criminal Court – 9 Mar. 2023

‘ICC’ Issues Warrants for Putin’s Arrest Regarding His Role in Russia’s War in Ukraine

By: Beatrice Nkansah

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

THE HAUGE, Netherlands – The tensions between Ukraine and Russia, formerly known as the Soviet Union, have been brewing for the past 8-9 years. Almost two centuries ago, the Soviet Union gifted Crimea to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine. In 2014, Russia violated General Principles of International Law by unlawfully annexing Crimea – forcing those living in Crimea to flee from Russian force and persecution. As a result of the unlawful annexation of ethnic and religious Crimea and Ukraine individuals are facing widespread discrimination and destruction. As tension between the two sovereign countries began to build, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 making significant advances until Ukrainian defending forces were able to launch counterattacks.

As a result of the growing tension and actions of Russia for the past decade, on March 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s Pre-Trial Chamber II issued a warrant for the arrest of Russia’s president – Vladimir Putin and Russia’s Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Russia.

Vladimir Putin and Presidential Commissioner of Children’s Rights in Russia, Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova . Photo Courtesy of Sky News.

The basis for the arrest warrant is alleged violations of the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute gives the ICC the power to investigate and prosecute international crimes relating to the following: Genocide, Crimes of Aggresion, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. The ICC is using the basis of Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute to assert their jurisdiction in issuing an arrest warrant for Putin on the basis of his individual responsibility and by holding him accountable for being a commanding superior to carry out the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children as part of their war strategies. The ICC alleges that Putin violated two clauses of Article 8 of the Rome Statute pertaining to what constitutes a war crime including unlawful deportation, unlawful confinement, and taking of hostages.

There was great debate within the ICC as to keeping the warrants a secret or not, but they decided to ultimately go public, hoping that doing so would reduce and prevent further crimes. The ICC also chose to go public with the warrants as a signal that all who violate international law in Ukraine will be held responsible regardless of their political power or status. The expectation following this warrant is that if Putin or the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s rights in Russia leave Russia, they shall be arrested and brought forth to the ICC. It is currently uncertain if the ICC will pursue additional allegations as a multitude of crimes against humanity has been made since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, justice will soon be brought to Ukraine.

 

For further information, please see:

Amnesty – Russia: ICC’s arrest warrant against Putin a step towards justice for victims of war crimes in Ukraine – 17 Mar. 2023

Council on Foreign Relations – Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia – 14 Feb. 2023

ICC – Rome Statute – 17 July 1998

ICC – Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova – 17 Mar. 2023

The Guardian – ICC judges issue arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin over alleged war crimes – 17 Mar. 2023

UK Government – Speech on Seventh anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea: UK statement – 4 Mar. 2021

First American ICC Case: What is Going on in Venezuela?

By: Alessa Rodriguez

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela – Venezuela is a rarely talked about South American country handling corruption and instability that is impacting its people so much that the ICC has been investigating the government since 2018. It is currently being led by Nicolas Maduro, and since his presidency the country has been repressing its citizens from speaking up as to the conditions of their country. Six ICC countries have asked the prosecutor to investigate the potential crimes in Venezuela, the first time countries have jointly asked for an investigation into another ICC member country and one of the first cases in the Americas region.

Protestor wearing sign saying “there is no food.” Photo Courtesy of AFP/Getty Images.

The violations and crimes being alleged are part of a widespread and systematic attack against the population. The allegations include crimes against humanity of imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty; torture, rape, and other forms of sexual violence; persecution against identifiable groups on political grounds by civilian authorities, members of armed forces, and government supporters.

Such commanders and superiors should have known about the crimes and did not take measures to prevent or repress them, they may have committed the abuses and covered them up, allegations say. Between 2016 and 2019 police and security forces killed nearly 18,000 people for alleged resistance to authority, the people were seen as government opponents, so agents executed them during raids after anti-government protests. The UN has also concluded that the authorities and pro-government groups had committed the violations, amounting to crimes against humanity.

In April 2021, the Human Rights Watch documented new cases, alleging that there is a pattern of systematic abuses that have led to international inquiries. A court filing from June of that year concluded that the authorities were unwilling to investigate or prosecute the cases because the domestic government had shielded people from criminal responsibility and that those proceedings have not been conducted independently. It has been determined that the Judiciary, Venezuela’s Supreme Court, has stopped functioning as an independent branch of government and is complicit in the abuses.

As of now, there is still no real conclusion to the investigation, nor has there been any trials.

 

For further information, please see:

Council on Foreign Relations – Instability in Venezuela – 6 Jan. 2023

Human Rights Watch – News – Venezuela: ICC Investigation Opens – 3 Nov. 2021

ICC – Investigations – Venezuela – Situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – Feb. 2018