Special Features

ICTJ: ICTJ Denounces South African Government’s Attempt to Exit the International Criminal Court

ICTJ
Subscribe
Forward this Email
ICTJ Denounces South African Government’s
Attempt to Exit the International Criminal Court
NEW YORK, October 21, 2016 – The International Center for Transitional Justice decries the announcement that South Africa will seek to withdraw from the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the International Criminal Court (ICC) and an international framework for fighting impunity for egregious crimes. Reportedly, a document stating this position, signed by Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South Africa’s minister of international relations and cooperation, dated October 19, 2016, was submitted to the United Nations.

The ICC is the world’s first permanent international criminal court. Governed by the Rome Statute, it provides for accountability for the most serious crimes and aims to help prevent them from happening again.

One year ago, South Africa ignored an ICC arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir while he was visiting the country, which was widely seen as avoiding its international legal obligations and undermining the court and its aims. Bashir is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Darfur.

“This marks a very sad day for the fight against impunity, particularly in view of the important role that South Africa played in the creation of the ICC,” said David Tolbert, President of ICTJ. “It is regrettable that South Africa appears to be turning its back on the victims of the worst crimes known to humanity. Given its oppressive past, South Africa should be leading the struggle for global human rights, not undermining it.”

In its attempt to shield leaders of other nations from accountability for the worst international crimes, the South African government has claimed that its own implementing legislation for the Rome Statute (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act of 2002) would require it to violate provisions of another national law, the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act of 2001. This proposition does not stand up to scrutiny, as the South African government not only ratified the Rome Statute but also adopted implementing legislation that is consistent with it.

Forty-five years of apartheid rule cast a long shadow over South Africa, with mass violations such as systemic racial discrimination, massacres, torture, and lengthy prison terms for activists, including Nelson Mandela. After apartheid officially ended, the South African Parliament created the well-known Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate and report on the gross violations of human rights committed during the apartheid period.

However, since the TRC concluded its work, the South African government has essentially ignored victims’ rights and failed to pursue individual criminal responsibility for abuses committed during apartheid, even when the accused did not receive amnesty from the TRC, either because they were denied amnesty or because they chose not to participate in the process.

“Lamentably, the South African government’s position is entirely consistent with its domestic policy of impunity for Apartheid-era atrocities by suppressing investigations and prosecutions,” said Tolbert. “This is a dark day not only for the fight against impunity but also for South Africa itself, which should be at the forefront of justice, not avoiding its moral responsibility to further accountability for the serious crimes the Rome Statute proscribes.”
PHOTO: South Africa’s Minister of Justice Michael Masutha addresses press regarding South Africa’s decision to withdraw from the ICC (Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images).
Go to ICTJ’s Website

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: Atrocity Alert: Iraq, Central African Republic, Philippines and Yemen

Atrocity Alert, No. 27

No Images? Click here

Atrocity Alert is a weekly publication by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect highlighting and updating situations where populations are at risk of, or are enduring, mass atrocity crimes.

Iraq

On 17 October the Iraqi government announced the launch of a long-anticipated offensive to liberate Mosul from the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Iraqi forces, supported by a United States-led anti-ISIL coalition and Kurdish Peshmerga, have been attacking ISIL targets with the aim of seizing back control of Iraq’s second-largest city. The UN has warned that the offensive may affect as many as 1.5 million civilians in Mosul, up to 1 million of whom may be displaced and may require emergency humanitarian assistance. During the first days of the offensive there have been reports of ISIL fighters using civilians as human shields. On 19 October the Popular Mobilization Force, a Shia paramilitary group, announced it would join the offensive. While retaking Fallujah from ISIL earlier this year, Shia militias reportedly targeted Sunni civilians fleeing the city for abduction and killing, possibly amounting to war crimes. It is essential that all parties participating in the battle for Mosul take effective measures to ensure the protection of civilians.

IRIN Photos

Central African Republic

Despite a period of relative stability following the establishment of a new government during April 2016, populations in Central African Republic remain at risk of mass atrocity crimes as various rebel groups continue to fight each other as well as attack civilians, humanitarian workers and UN peacekeepers. The risk is particularly acute in Kaga-Bandoro where attacks perpetrated by ex-Séléka on 12 October, and the ensuing defense by the UN Mission in CAR (MINUSCA), resulted in at least 30 people killed and several thousand civilians displaced. Since September humanitarian agencies have been forced to withdraw from Kaga-Bandoro and surrounding villages as a result of ex-Séléka looting and targeted attacks on humanitarian workers. While MINUSCA was able to eventually repel the Kaga-Bandoro attackers, it must do more to anticipate threats to vulnerable populations and forcibly disarm armed groups.

UNHCR Photos

Philippines

Since taking office on 30 June 2016, Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte has implemented a violent campaign against millions of civilians suspected of either dealing or using illegal drugs. President Duterte has been accused of inciting vigilante groups to attack drug dealers and encouraging police to carry out extrajudicial killings. An estimated 3,800 civilians have been killed so far this year. President Duterte has responded to international condemnation of his policies with derision. The widespread extrajudicial execution of suspected drug users or traffickers may amount to potential crimes against humanity.

Linus G. Escandor II/PRI

Yemen

UN Special Envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, announced on 17 October that all Yemeni parties have committed to a 72-hour cessation of hostilities as of 19 October at 23:59 Yemeni time. The Special Envoy will negotiate an extension of the cessation if the first 72-hour period is respected. Violence between Houthi rebels and various pro-government forces, as well as sustained Saudi-led coalition airstrikes, have resulted in more than 4,125 civilians killed since March 2015. More than 3 million Yemenis have been displaced by the conflict while an estimated 82 percent of the population require humanitarian assistance. It is essential that all parties to the conflict respect the proposed cessation of hostilities, and allow unhindered humanitarian access. All parties to the conflict must immediately cease indiscriminate attacks on civilians and return to credible peace talks.

UN Photo/JC McIlwaine

Connect With Us

IntLawGrrls: Is There a Linkage Between Gender-Based Atrocity Crimes and Sexual Assault?

Is There a Linkage Between Gender-Based Atrocity Crimes and Sexual Assault?
October 19, 2016
By Jennifer Trahan
in IntLawGrrls
Over the last two decades, there has been exponential growth in the capacity at the international level to prosecute atrocity crimes, particularly through international and hybrid tribunals, including, prosecutions of rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence.  In light of these strides which advance the rule of law, particularly, international criminal law, and bring at least a measure of accountability for some of the worst atrocities of the last two decades, is it permissible for a public figure who aspires to leadership to brag about (and allegedly commit) sexual assault?   Are atrocity crimes and sexual assault delinked concepts, or part and parcel of the same phenomenon?
Unlike the prosecutions after World War II before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo, where sexual violence crimes were virtually ignored, today, international and hybrid criminal tribunals prosecute these crimes.  Through groundbreaking jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the judges recognized that rape can be a form of genocide.  And, through groundbreaking cases at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the judges recognized that rape can also be a war crime and a crime against humanity.  That tribunal also brought important focus on the use of rape, for example, through prosecutions of perpetrators at a particularly notorious “rape camp,” in Foca.  Other (often horrific) forms of sexual violence that do not constitute “rape” per se, were prosecuted as “other inhumane acts,” which is a crime against humanity.  This work of the Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals is today being carried forward by the International Criminal Court, where, for instance, the recent conviction of Jean-Pierre Bemba, included command responsibility convictions for rape, as both a war crime and crime against humanity, committed in the Central African Republic.
Why has there been such pervasive use of gender-based violence, and why does it continue unabated today (in places, for instances, such as Syria, against the Yazidis)?  (It was also part of the genocide in Darfur, and the 1988 genocide by Iraqi forces against the Kurds.)  A few observations can be offered.
First, through a long period of history, rape was seen as similar to plunder, something to which the victors were entitled, as spoils of war.  While the laws of war now clearly forbid such behavior, it is not clear whether that linkage has been entirely severed.
Second, atrocity crimes, including crimes of sexual violence, are made easier to commit through dehumanization of “the other.”  Thus, in both Rwanda and Bosnia, the “other” ethnic group was portrayed as both the enemy (collectively) and as something less than human.  Thus, for example, in Rwanda, the Hutu, in the planning of and during the genocide, termed the Tutsi as Inyenzi, or “cockroaches.”  Had the enemy been seen as individual, it would have been harder to commit the crimes.  Through dehumanization and the stoking of fear, nationalistic leaders in the former Yugoslavia, and leaders in Rwanda (aided by an incendiary media), convinced people to commit horrific crimes, including gender-based violence crimes.
Third, there also appears a linkage between gender-based violence crimes and the unequal position of women in society pre-atrocity.  If women had been seen as equally valued members of society, would situations have deteriorated so precipitously into the use of gender-based violence?  Is there something about the mindset of men who treat women as unequal to begin with, and, historically, centuries of unequal treatment, that in times of armed conflict, can morph into the commission of mass gender-based atrocity crimes?
Fourth, when mass atrocity crimes occur, particularly gender-based violence crimes, another precept that has eroded is the humanity of the perpetrator to see the victim as an individual.  If human rights are respected in a society, and the rule of law works (complaints can be filed and courts are able to operate fairly), then one hopes never to reach these horrific depths of depravity.
Why is all this relevant today?  Because there is a linkage between the mind-set of one Presidential candidate’s bragging about sexual assault (and the accusers who say he committed it) and the mind-set that can devolve, particularly in war-time, into larger-scale sexual and gender-based violence.
We are fortunate in the U.S. not to have suffered atrocity crimes on our soil, at least for a long time, and, generally, U.S. courts (both civilian and military) work well, and the rule of law is, by and large, respected.  So, we do not witness in our country sexual violence crimes that rise to the level of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Yet, at heart, bragging about sexual assault objectifies and depersonalizes the victims, and more broadly denies that women deserve a respected and equal place in society, where their rights are fully respected.  Is it so different from the devaluation and dehumanization of women that occurs when sexually-based atrocity crimes occur?  Yes—don’t get me wrong—there is a vast magnitude of difference between what happened in Bosnia and Rwanda, and sexual assault in the U.S. during peacetime, but the conduct belongs on the same spectrum.
It is important to acknowledge this linkage, and condemn sexual assault, wherever and whenever it occurs, whether against men, women, or children, in peace-time or in war.  It is equally unacceptable to brag about what constitutes a crime, and the problem is only compounded when the speaker fails to comprehend the magnitude of the issue.  This isn’t just “locker-room banter,” and suggesting it is also devalues all the men who don’t use such “banter” in a “locker-room.”
The U.S., in the new Administration, needs to continue to exercise moral leadership in the field of atrocity crimes prosecutions, as it did in spearheading the Nuremberg prosecutions and supporting the creation of the Yugoslav and Rwanda Tribunals. It needs to have a leader at its helm who can credibly do so.

War Crimes Prosecution Watch: Volume 11, Issue 16 – October 17, 2016

Case School of Law Logo

FREDERICK K. COX
INTERNATIONAL LAW CENTER

Founder/Advisor
Michael P. Scharf

 War Crimes Prosecution Watch

Volume 11 – Issue 16
October 17, 2016

 PILPG Logo

Editor-in-Chief
Kevin J. Vogel

Technical Editor-in-Chief
Jeradon Z. Mura

Managing Editors
Dustin Narcisse
Victoria Sarant

War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. To subscribe, please email warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org and type “subscribe” in the subject line.

Opinions expressed in the articles herein represent the views of their authors and are not necessarily those of the War Crimes Prosecution Watch staff, the Case Western Reserve University School of Law or Public International Law & Policy Group.

Contents

AFRICA

CENTRAL AFRICA

Central African Republic

Sudan & South Sudan

Democratic Republic of the Congo

WEST AFRICA

Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast)

Lake Chad Region — Chad, Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon

Mali

EAST AFRICA

Uganda

Kenya

Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda)

Somalia

NORTH AFRICA

Libya

EUROPE

Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber

Domestic Prosecutions In The Former Yugoslavia

MIDDLE EAST AND ASIA

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Iraq

Syria

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Yemen

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal

War Crimes Investigations in Burma

Israel and Palestine

North Korea

AMERICAS

North & Central America

South America

TOPICS

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Terrorism

Piracy

Gender-Based Violence

Commentary and Perspectives

WORTH READING

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: Atrocity Alert: Burma/Myanmar, Syria and Yemen

Atrocity Alert is a weekly publication by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect highlighting and updating situations where populations are at risk of, or are enduring, mass atrocity crimes.

Burma/Myanmar

Following a series of attacks on border posts on 9 October in Burma/Myanmar’s Arakhan/Rakhine state, it was reported that nine police officers and eight attackers were killed. The identity or affiliation of the attackers has not been established. The government subsequently declared a state of emergency in Maungdaw and in three other townships in Arakhan/Rakhine state and deployed security forces to the area. Reports of mass arrests and extrajudicial killings  of Rohingya have surfaced since a joint army-police counter-operation began on 10 October. The current situation risks exacerbating existing inter-communal tensions in Arakhine/Rakhine state between Buddhists and members of the Rohingya group, a distinct Muslim ethnic minority, which has been systematically persecuted by the government.

Syria

On 8 October the UN Security Council (UNSC) failed to adopt two separate draft resolutions on the conflict in Syria, highlighting the entrenched political divisions between Council members. A draft resolution put forward by the French and Spanish, which would have had the UNSC demand an immediate halt to airstrikes and military flights over the city of Aleppo and urged the immediate implementation of a cessation of hostilities, was vetoed by Russia, with Venezuela also voting against the proposal. The UNSC subsequently voted on a Russian draft text, which would have urged an immediate cessation of hostilities and demanded that all parties prevent material and financial support from reaching terrorist groups. The resolution only received 4 votes in favor, and thus did not have enough support to be adopted. With over 280,000 people already dead, Saturday’s veto condemns countless more Syrians to unnecessary suffering.

A growing number of UN member states and civil society organizations believe that the UNSC demonstrated on Saturday that it is unable to uphold its UN Charter mandate to maintain international peace and security with regard to Syria, and that, therefore, the UN General Assembly should be allowed to take up the issue, utilizing the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism.

Yemen

On 8 October forces from the Saudi-led military coalition reportedly bombed a reception hall in Sana’a during the funeral of a Yemeni government minister’s father. The airstrike resulted in more than 140 people killed, one of the largest death tolls resulting from a single attack since the conflict in Yemen escalated in March 2015. The UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Yemen and the Head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs both immediately condemned the attack, calling for increased measures to ensure the protection of civilians, respect for international humanitarian law, and accountability for the airstrike. The United States and United Kingdom both released statements indicating they would review their support for the Saudi-led coalition. On 10 October the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement, later supported by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, that reiterated his call for an independent, international inquiry into violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law since the start of the conflict.

Connect With Us