War Crimes Prosecution Watch

Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICC)

Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

U.S. sanctions on warlords welcomed
CNN
November 1, 2006

KINSHASA , Democratic Republic of Congo (AP) -- Congo's government on Wednesday welcomed a decision by the United States to impose sanctions on seven warlords and businessmen, including a notorious international arms dealer, who are accused of fueling instability in this vast country's lawless east.

In an executive order Tuesday, President Bush froze the U.S. assets of the seven men and barred Americans from doing business with them. The seven were accused of violating international laws involving the targeting of children or violating a ban on sales of military equipment to Congo.

It was not immediately known what assets the group had in the United States, if any.

"They may or they may not -- that's really not the point or the object," said Christopher Davis, a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Kinshasa. "It is a warning to anyone else about dealing with these individuals ... that they run the risk of finding themselves under similar sanctions."

Congo government spokesman Henri Mova Sakanyi said he did not expect the sanctions to affect Congo's tense runoff election, which pits incumbent Joseph Kabila against Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former warlord who was made vice president in a power-sharing administration after the country's 1998-2002 war.

The runoff held Sunday was largely peaceful, though one-day repeat votes were required in two towns after rioting mobs destroyed ballots and polling stations.

"It's a good thing for us that the international community is beginning to sanction those who financed the war," Sakanyi told The Associated Press. "Without help from outside, the war wouldn't have lasted as long."

Congo is struggling to recover from decades of dictatorship and a war that divided the country into rival fiefdoms and drew in the armies of half a dozen African nations, many of which were accused of plundering the country's mineral wealth, including diamond, gold and copper.

Huge tracts of the east remain lawless despite the presence of more than 17,000 U.N. peacekeepers deployed in Congo to bolster security.

Those targeted by the White House sanctions include Congolese warlord Laurent Nkunda, 49, who operates a private fiefdom in Congo's eastern Masisi territory and claims the loyalty of thousands of army troops. His forces have been accused of torture and rape, and he has been named in an international arrest warrant for war crimes.

Also named were Rwandan militia leader Ignace Murwanashyaka and Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, an infamous figure who allegedly has trafficked weapons to Central and West Africa since the early 1990s. The list identified Bout as the owner of the Great Lakes Business Co., accused of transporting arms by plane in violation of embargoes.

Two others working for Great Lakes Business Co. were Dimitri Igorevich Popov, 45, general manager, and Douglas Mpano, 41, manager.

The rest were Khawa Panga Mandro, 33, former head of the Party for Unity and Safeguarding of the Integrity of Congo, and Sanjivan Singh Ruprah, 40, a businessman.

"We are glad to know that the United States government is now ready to put out everyone involved" in the war, Sakanyi said.

Meanwhile, a repeat vote in the presidential runoff that had been set for Wednesday in the northeastern town of Fataki was postponed by a day. A local electoral official, John Ukunya, said they needed more time to fly in new voting materials and inform voters the ballot would be held again.

Hundreds rioted in Fataki on Monday after an apparently drunken soldier shot and killed two election workers. The ensuing violence destroyed nine voting centers -- each with multiple polling stations -- and the results stored within. Electoral officials said about 25,000 people would have the chance to cast ballots again.

A separate repeat vote was held Tuesday in the town of Bumba.

Results from the landmark election are not expected for days or weeks. The electoral commission has said it will publish provisional results by November 19.

Observers from the European Union and the U.S.-based Carter Center both commended the vote.

"Despite enormous logistical challenges and significant tension between candidates, the administration of these elections has been a major success," former Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clark, head of the Carter Center observer group, said Wednesday.

The vote is the climax of a four-year transition process aimed at moving Congo into democratic rule for the first time since it gained independence from Belgium in 1960. The country has seen little but dictatorship and war since.

DR Congo: ICC Hearing Could Pave Way for Court's First Trial
Human Rights Watch
November 8, 2006

Prosecutor Must Pursue More Changes and Perpetrators

The prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) must pursue more charges against Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga and prosecute others responsible for heinous crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) if the court is going to bring justice to the Congolese people, Human Rights Watch said today.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, who has been in the ICC’s custody since March 16, is the former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), an armed group responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Ituri region of northeastern DRC. The ICC has charged him with enlisting and conscripting children as soldiers and using them to participate actively in the conflict in Ituri. On November 9, the court will begin a crucial hearing in The Hague to determine if there is sufficient evidence against Lubanga to move ahead with what would be the ICC’s first-ever trial.

“The hearing to confirm these important charges marks a milestone for the victims in Ituri,” said Géraldine Mattioli, international justice advocate at Human Rights Watch. “But these charges only begin to address the horrific acts committed by the UPC. If the ICC is going to have an impact on ending impunity in Ituri, the prosecutor must pursue more charges against Lubanga and target more perpetrators responsible for atrocities.”

The UPC under Lubanga committed numerous other serious crimes in Ituri, including murder, torture, rape and mutilation. More than 60,000 civilians have been slaughtered by armed groups in Ituri since the beginning of the conflict, according to the UN.
Other armed groups, including the Lendu militia Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI) led by Floribert Njabu, also committed serious human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch believes that the ICC prosecutor should investigate Congolese, Ugandan and Rwandan officials who may be implicated in some of the international crimes committed in Ituri.

The hearing is not a trial to determine whether Thomas Lubanga is guilty or not, but a pre-trial hearing in which the prosecution will have to satisfy the court that there is enough evidence to move ahead with a trial. During the hearing, Lubanga, through his lawyer, can object to the charges and challenge the prosecution’s evidence.

Four victims, through their legal representatives, will present their views and concerns about the current charges to the court as independent parties. However, they cannot participate in a manner that is prejudicial to or inconsistent with Lubanga’s fair trial rights.

“This is the first time victims will be heard in an international criminal proceeding presenting their own concerns and not just as witnesses,” said Mattioli. “It is crucial that the ICC keeps people in the DRC informed about these and other important developments in The Hague.”

Human Rights Watch urged the ICC to disseminate information about the hearing by holding a news conference in The Hague and transmitting it via video link for live broadcast in the DRC. The court should also make available audio, video and written summaries in an easily accessible and understandable format after the hearing. Background

Ituri is one of the areas worst affected by Congo’s devastating wars. A local armed conflict between Hema and Lendu ethnic groups that began in 1999 was exacerbated by Ugandan military forces and aggravated by the broader international armed conflict in the DRC.

Over the past five years, Human Rights Watch has gathered hundreds of testimonies documenting widespread human rights abuses committed by the UPC in Ituri. Survivors told Human Rights Watch how the UPC, a predominately Hema militia group, carried out ethnic massacres, murder, torture, rape and mutilation, as well as the recruitment of child soldiers. For example, UPC combatants under the leadership of Lubanga slaughtered at least 800 civilians on the basis of their ethnicity in the gold mining region of Mongbwalu between November 2002 and June 2003.

Serious human rights abuses were also committed by other groups, including the FNI, a Lendu militia opposed to the UPC led by Floribert Njabu. For example, in March 2003, the FNI attacked the town of Kilo in Ituri and killed at least 100 civilians, mostly women and children, whom they accused of helping the Hema.

The Ituri conflict, as well as others in eastern DRC, highlights the participation of non-Congolese forces. Ituri in particular became a battleground between the governments of Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC. These governments have provided political and military support to Congolese armed groups, despite abundant evidence of their widespread violations of international humanitarian law.

In April 2004, the transitional Congolese government referred crimes committed in the country to the ICC. On June 23, 2004, the prosecutor announced the beginning of the court’s investigation in the DRC.

The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, has broad international support. Currently, 102 countries have ratified the Rome Statute establishing the court, and nearly 130 have signed the Rome treaty.

International Criminal Court hearings start in case seen by UN as move against impunity
UN News Service
November 9, 2006

Hearings began today to determine whether a former militia leader in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) accused of recruiting child soldiers will be the first person tried before the International Criminal Court ( ICC), in a case which United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has described as sending a message that impunity will not be tolerated.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was formally charged by the ICC Prosecutor’s office in August with enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities.

The hearings, which will last until 28 November at the ICC’s headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, will determine whether there is enough evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Mr. Lubanga Dyilo committed the crimes charged.

Mr. Lubanga Dyilo, who was arrested in March, is the President of the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC) and was the commander-in-chief of its former military wing, the Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo (FPLC) in 2002-03 in the Ituri district in the north-eastern DRC.

He is accused of playing “an overall coordinating role” in the policy of the FPLC to recruit and enlist child soldiers and providing the “organizational, infrastructural and logistical framework for its implementation.”

In August, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo described the charges as “just the first step in the case… We believe our evidence is strong,” he said. “However, until his guilt is established, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is presumed innocent.” In March, Mr. Annan said he was very pleased with Mr. Lubanga Dyilo’s arrest. “It’s a very good example for other,” he told a news conference in Kinshasa, the DRC capital. “It is a message that impunity cannot be accepted, and international community working with the Government must to everything to ensure that this kind of activity cannot continue.”

Established by the Rome Statute of 1998, the ICC can try cases involving individuals charged with war crimes committed since July 2002. The UN Security Council, the ICC Prosecutor or a State Party to the court can initiate any proceedings, and the ICC only acts when countries themselves are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute.

Congolese warlord's hearing on child soldiers begins
CNN
November 9, 2006

(AP) -- Wearing a traditional blue African shirt and flanked by guards, a former Congolese militia leader accused of using child soldiers to kill and mutilate his enemies appeared Thursday before judges who will decide if he will be the first person to stand trial at the International Criminal Court.

Thomas Lubanga, who denies the charges against him, identified himself to the three-judge panel as the former president of the armed group Union of Congolese Patriots.

Prosecutors say the group and its armed wing recruited children, as young as 7, and trained them to kill members of rival tribes during the 1998 to 2002 Congo war, which drew in armies from a half-dozen African nations. If the children refused to fight, they were threatened with execution, the indictment against Lubanga alleges. The children allegedly also were made to cook and become sex slaves.

Lubanga's is first case to go before permanent war crimes court

The International Court, unlike the temporary courts set up to investigate human rights abuses in Rwanda, Yugoslavia and other nations, this is the world's first permanent and independent tribunal for judging war crimes and genocide.

Lubanga was arrested in March 2005 in Congo and transferred to the Hague-based court a year later.

Defense lawyers call him a pacifist who attempted to restore calm in Congo's lawless Ituri region.

If the panel decides Lubanga will stand trial, his would be the first case to be heard by the permanent war crimes tribunal, established in 2002.

Trial to focus attention on abuses of child soldiers

Lubanga is the only suspect in the court's custody. Prosecutors say his case is key to focusing international attention on the widespread practice in Africa and other parts of the world of recruiting child soldiers, often by force. The United Nations estimates that 300,000 child soldiers are involved in conflicts around the world.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers were making their opening statements Thursday, along with lawyers for victims. The hearing is scheduled to take three weeks.

"Regardless of the outcome, this case will expose the destructiveness of forcing children to fight adult wars," deputy prosecutor Fatou Bensouda told reporters Wednesday.

The hearing -- almost a mini-trial -- is meant to determine whether the evidence against Lubanga is strong enough to merit a full trial, which could last months. He faces a maximum life sentence if convicted.

The hearing marks the first time prosecutors have presented evidence to a panel of the court's judges.

Victims to make opening and closing statements

Attorneys representing victims will be present throughout the case and will be able to make opening and closing statements.

"It is simply a matter of great importance that this court allows victims to be heard and to be given the respect which was stripped from them at the time that they suffered as they did," said victims' lawyer George Gebbie.

Defense lawyers can challenge the evidence and cross-examine a witness who is expected to appear next week.

After the hearing, judges have 60 days to decide whether to proceed to a full trial, throw out the charges or order prosecutors to amend their charges.

"The hearing to confirm these important charges marks a milestone for the victims in Ituri," Geraldine Mattioli of New York-based group Human Rights Watch said in a statement Wednesday.

"But these charges only begin to address the horrific acts committed," she said. "If the ICC is going to have an impact on ending impunity in Ituri, the prosecutor must pursue more charges against Lubanga and target more perpetrators responsible for atrocities."

One step forward two back: Africa war crimes justice
Reuters
November 10, 2006

KAMPALA , Nov 10 (Reuters) - One Congolese militia leader wanted for war crimes is facing justice in the Hague. But two others have gained army posts in re-integration deals.

With fugitive warlords around Africa weighing their options as they try to negotiate a way out of their rebellions, the mixed messages have raised concerns among rights campaigners.

They say extrajudicial deals, such as those sought by leaders of Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), encourage impunity and make resolving long-running conflicts even harder.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague opened a hearing on Thursday against Thomas Lubanga, one of Democratic Republic of Congo's most feared militia leaders, in its first case since it was established in 2002.

Lubanga is accused of using child soldiers: training and forcing them to kill and allowing them to be killed.

But last month, the leaders of two other Congolese militia groups accused of war crimes, Peter Karim and Matthieu Ngudjolo, were appointed colonels in the national army under re-integration agreements that outraged rights campaigners.

"If you make killers into colonels, it sends out a message that you can get away with it. We need to have these people arrested, not rewarded," Anneke Van Woudenberg, a Congo expert with Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.

Lubanga's militia was one of several fighting over east Congo's mineral-rich Ituri district in a 1998-2003 war that created a humanitarian crisis which has killed 4 million people, mostly from hunger and disease.

Another Ituri militia leader, Cobra Matata, is trying to negotiate a surrender including immunity from prosecution.

"Why did they only arrest Lubanga? It makes no sense. A lot of people committed war crimes in Congo's fighting," said Godefroid Mpiana of local human rights group Justice Plus.

U.N. officials say making militiamen colonels will not necessarily stop them being prosecuted.

"In three months, they can arrest them. Just because they're colonels won't prevent that," U.N. mission spokesman Leocadio Salmeron told Reuters in Bunia, eastern Congo.

"DOUBLE-EDGED"

The ICC is seeking to prosecute other African warlords, in particular five LRA leaders. These say they are willing to make peace with Uganda's government, but only if the ICC drops its charges.

The LRA leaders remain in hiding on the Sudan-Congo border while peace talks continue in south Sudan between their representatives and the Ugandan government.

"With Lubanga in court, the LRA will simply now insist that the indictments against them must be dropped before coming out," said Norbert Mao, a peace campaigner and chairman of Gulu district, at the epicentre of Uganda's conflict.

Many analysts believe such leaders will never make peace while they risk arrest and prosecution.

"They're going to think talks are a trap, like what happened to (former Liberian President) Charles Taylor," Mao said.

In 2003, the Nigerian government granted exile to Taylor, now accused of war crimes, in exchange for him leaving Liberia to end the conflict there. But this year it gave him up for trial in an international court under diplomatic pressure.

Taylor 's fate, coupled with Lubanga's prosecution while others remain free, could make the LRA leaders wary of peace.

"The ICC has been double-edged," said Paul Omach, political scientist at Kampala's Makerere university. "It made them afraid to come out, but that fear also put pressure on them to negotiate, because they can be held to account if they don't."

[back to contents]

Darfur, Sudan (ICC)

Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Darfur, Sudan

UN eyes "hybrid" Darfur force to win Sudan backing
Reuters
by Irwin Arieff
November 8, 2006

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Frustrated by Sudan's strong opposition to U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur, the United Nations considered on Wednesday a hybrid African Union-U.N. force as a way to get around Khartoum's objections.

Such a force could bolster the under-financed and ill-equipped African Union force now in Darfur, which Sudan has accepted, with non-African troops, communications gear and logistical support channeled through the United Nations, U.N. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

One way to win approval from Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir might be to put the force under an AU commander who would report to both the African Union and the U.N. special envoy for Sudan, they said.

With conditions on the ground deteriorating, there was a need for the United Nations "to work urgently with the Sudanese government and other parties concerned to find a way out of the impasse which exists today," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters on Wednesday.

"We are focusing on getting into Darfur an effective force, strengthening the African Union force that is there, giving them all the support that they need," Annan said.

In his conversations with Bashir, the Sudanese president had already accepted a bolstering of the AU force with outside resources and support personnel, Annan told reporters.

Violence is on the increase in Darfur, where some 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2.5 million driven from their homes in a conflict that has raged since 2003.

The fighting pits mostly non-Arab rebels against troops from the Arab-dominated Khartoum government and Arab militia known as Janjaweed blamed for widespread rape and plunder.

The U.N. Security Council in August approved deployment of as many as 22,000 peacekeepers to Darfur. But Bashir has resisted intense international pressure to let in U.N. troops, arguing that would be like inviting Western powers to recolonize his country.

The goal of devising a hybrid force was to get Bashir to agree to what troops, equipment and support were needed and only then worry about what to call it, the U.N. officials said.

The Security Council has already approved U.N. support staff and $22 million of equipment for the AU troops and the United Nations now wants to go beyond that to ensure an effective force is in place by year's end, Annan said.

With Khartoum steadfastly blocking a U.N. force, "what we need is another plan. And the other plan, it seems to me, is to concentrate on what is needed on the ground," a senior British official said in London on Wednesday.

"We need to sit down with the president and say, 'Look, can we agree the following sort of operation?' And only then decide how you badge it," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

(Additional reporting by Sophie Walker in London)

Security Council members discuss how to move forward on Darfur – Annan
UN News Service
November 8, 2006

8 November 2006 – As officials today voiced concern about a build-up of government troops in Darfur, Sudan, Secretary-General Kofi Annan discussed with members of the Security Council next steps to address the situation in the troubled region.

“We talked about the situation in Darfur, and the need for us to work urgently with the Sudanese Government and other parties concerned to find a way out of the impasse which exists today with the deteriorating situation on the ground,” Mr. Annan told reporters following a working luncheon in New York with members of the Council.

He pointed to a series of upcoming meetings, including of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, which currently has a force, known as AMIS, deployed in Darfur.

“Everyone hopes that between now and the end of the month we will be able to come with a workable alternative so that we can move ahead with the implementation of Resolution 1706, and help the people concerned,” Mr. Annan said.

By that text, adopted in late August, the Council voted to deploy a UN force of more than 17,000 peacekeepers across Darfur and said it “invites the consent” of the Sudanese Government. But Khartoum has so far opposed the measure.

Responding to press questions, the Secretary-General said the focus now is “on getting into Darfur an effective force, strengthening the African Union force – that is, giving them all the support that they need, including finding ways of putting in additional resources that [Sudanese] President [Omar al-]Bashir, in his discussions with me, had already accepted – “African Union Plus.”

A $22 million package approved by the Council will help by putting in communication and other experts to assist the Sudanese, Mr. Annan noted, adding: “hopefully we want to go beyond that and work with the African Union and the Sudanese to ensure that we do have an effective force on the ground, and we are looking beyond the end of the year.”

He warned that the international community must take a long-range view “not get caught by the end of the year without any effective arrangements and force on the ground.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Annan’s Deputy Special Representative in Sudan, Tayé Zerihoun, today discussed the UN support package to AMIS with the African Union (AU) Commissioner for Peace and Security, Said Djinnit, according to a spokesman for the world body.

Meanwhile, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reiterated its concerns about the deployment of additional government troops in Darfur.

The UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), which was set up to monitor a separate peace deal ending a 21-year conflict in the country’s south, said reports were received on a deployment of at least 30 military vehicles full of government soldiers in North Darfur.

In West Darfur, a new build up of armed militia was reported by several sources in the Jebel Moon area, UNMIS said.

Agency ends Darfur aid after obstruction
Reuters via ABC News
November 10, 2006

The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) says obstruction by the Sudanese Government has forced it to close its Darfur operation that was providing humanitarian relief to 300,000 war victims.

Sudan is suspicious of the dozens of foreign aid agencies working in Darfur and has targeted more vocal organisations, especially those that have revealed figures for rape, a crime Sudan denies is widespread in the violent region.

NRC secretary-general Tomas C Archer says closing down is the very last option.

"However, the frequent disruption of our humanitarian work, such as suspension for a sum total of 210 days, is forcing us to take this very difficult decision," he said in a statement.

"We cannot work when the authorities suspend us continuously and do not respond to our repeated requests for dialogue."

Sudanese officials were not immediately available to comment.

Darfur is home to the world's largest humanitarian operation, with 14,000 aid workers.

Experts estimate 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million forced from their homes over three-and-a-half years of conflict, which the United States describes as genocide.

Last year, Sudan ordered the heads of Oxfam and Save the Children to leave the country after both issued press releases about the ongoing violence in Darfur.

Two senior members of Medecins Sans Frontieres Holland were arrested and charged with espionage and publishing false information after their organisation issued a report detailing hundreds of rape victims they had treated in Darfur hospitals.

Ongoing trouble

NRC had constant troubles with the authorities since it began operations in 2004 and its activities were suspended five times.

NRC worked in Darfur's vast and most volatile camp, Kalma in South Darfur.

Kalma residents burnt and looted the offices of government authorities, which have not been able to reestablish control for almost two years.

They say rebels have infiltrated the camp and accused NRC, the agency in charge of Kalma, of aiding them.

Mostly non-Arab rebels took up arms in early 2003, accusing the central Government of marginalising the remote west. The Government armed militias to quell the revolt.

Those militia stand accused of a widespread campaign of rape, looting and murder, although Khartoum denies genocide.

The International Criminal Court is investigating alleged war crimes.

Annan urges end to attacks near Central African Republic’s border with Darfur, Sudan
UN News Service
November 10, 2006

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today decried the growing violence near the Central African Republic’s border with the strife-torn Darfur region of Sudan, while the top UN human rights official warned that attacks in West Darfur could intensify unless the Khartoum Government curbs and disarms militias there.

“The Secretary-General is deeply concerned about worsening security conditions in north-eastern Central African Republic on the border with Sudan’s Darfur region,” his spokesman said in a statement issued in New York.

Warning that the situation continues to deteriorate amid ongoing rebel attacks in different parts of the country and the recent violent seizure of Birao, he called for the immediate end to the occupation of that city so that humanitarian and security conditions can be alleviated for civilians living in the area.

“The Secretary-General stresses the urgent need to find a comprehensive solution to the security problems along the borders of Chad, the Central African Republic and Sudan,” the spokesman said.

Meanwhile, High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said in a statement that over the past month, West Darfur has witnessed intensified movements and consolidation of armed militias, especially in the northern and south-western part of the state. At the same time, there are increased reports of the distribution of weapons to these groups in Geneina and outlying areas.

“I am deeply concerned that if the Government of Sudan does not take control of the militias, disarm them, and put an end to the proliferation of arms, the militias will continue to launch attacks on civilians, as they did on 29 October in an area south and west of Jebel Moon,” she said. Over 50 civilians were killed and thousands of others displaced during that incident.

Soon after that attack, Mr. Annan called for the authorities to prevent such atrocities and protect civilians – demands that Ms. Arbour echoed in a report on the killings issued by her office last week.

The report also called for an investigation into the Jebel Moon attacks. Today, she said it was encouraging that the Governor of West Darfur had begun such a probe.

[back to contents]

Uganda (ICC)

Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Uganda

Uganda says confident peace talks will succeed
Reuters
by Tim Cocks
November 9, 2006

The Ugandan government said on Thursday it was confident peace talks with the Lord's Resistance Army rebels aimed at ending one of Africa's longest wars would succeed, despite delays and mistrust on both sides.

This month the two sides signed an extension of a landmark truce that many hope will draw a line under a brutal 20-year insurgency that killed tens of thousands of people and displaced nearly 2 million in northern Uganda.

"The fact that we have not finalised the talks may be a source of frustration ... but the peace process, we are confident, will succeed," Internal Affairs Minister Rukuhana Rugunda, the head of the government negotiating team, told reporters.

He was speaking on a visit to Kampala after a break in the talks to allow the LRA's delegates to consult the high command in their jungle hideouts about the next phase of the agreement.

The renewed ceasefire gives the LRA until Dec. 1 to assemble at two meeting places in southern Sudan -- Owiny-Ki-Bul on the Uganda border and Ri-Kwangba on the Congo border -- near the top commanders' hideouts in the Congo forest.

Truce monitors said the LRA had failed to assemble by a Sept. 19 deadline. The LRA complained the assembly areas lacked clean water and food, and they said the Ugandan army was surrounding them.

But Rugunda said their concerns had been addressed and a non-governmental organisation would provide food, water and drugs to the areas.

"We have made sure this time the essential facilities at these assembly points are in place," Rugunda said. "(We are) making sure that water is available."

He added that the new agreement had defined the assembly areas more precisely and tightened the time frame within which an agreement on pending matters must be completed.

ARREST WARRANTS

LRA leader Joseph Kony and deputy Vincent Otti have said they will never sign a deal unless arrest warrants for them at the International Criminal Court in the Hague are dropped.

Kony, Otti and three other LRA commanders are wanted for war crimes, including killing civilians, rape, and abducting children to serve as fighters and sex slaves.

But Rugunda reiterated that Uganda will request the ICC to drop the charges only after a comprehensive peace deal is signed and the rebel leaders have undergone traditional 'Mato Oput' justice rituals, seen by many as an alternative to the Hague.

" Uganda has repeatedly stated: take the talks seriously, conclude them, have a peace agreement, go through Mato Oput. Government will (then) engage International Criminal Court."

The government says Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands have committed aid in recent months.

U.N. humanitarian coordinator Jan Egeland will visit Juba this weekend to support talks, his second trip in two months.

UN aid chief willing to meet Kony
BBC News
November 10, 2006

United Nations aid chief Jan Egeland has told the BBC he could meet Uganda's rebel leader, if abducted women and children are released first.

Rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) officials have said their leader Joseph Kony wants to meet Mr Egeland, who is due to arrive in East Africa shortly.

The LRA wants the UN envoy to get war crimes charges against Mr Kony dropped.

The rebel leader refuses to attend talks aimed at ending the 20-year conflict in case he is arrested.

Thousands of children have been forced to fight for the rebels during the 20-year conflict in northern Uganda.

War crimes

"If he [Kony] is willing to release some of the children and the women they have abducted, I would be willing to see him," Mr Egeland told the BBC's World Today programme.

Mr Egeland is due to arrive in Kenya on Friday, before travelling to the southern Sudan's capital, Juba, which is hosting the Ugandan peace talks.

He is also set to travel to Sudan's war-torn region of Darfur in his last tour of Africa before standing down next month.

The LRA want Mr Egeland to use his influence to get the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague to drop war crimes charges against Mr Kony and three other top rebel commanders.

Mr Kony refuses to attend the talks, saying he fears being arrested and is said to be hiding in jungles in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo

Last week the government and LRA signed a new truce to try to revive the stalled talks.

Under an August agreement, the rebels were supposed to gather at two points by mid-September. But both sides violated the deal.

The new truce allows the rebels another month to go to these assembly points in southern Sudan, which are now surrounded by buffer zones.

Tens of thousands of people have died and more than one-and-a-half million displaced as the LRA attacked civilians and abducted children in northern Uganda and southern Sudan.

The ICC said recently that it was waiting for the outcome of peace talks before deciding on how to proceed with cases against the rebel leaders.

The Ugandan government says it will not consider an amnesty for the men until a peace deal is reached.

Uganda: UN appeals for calm over escalating deaths in disarmament operation
UN News Service
November 10, 2006

United Nations officials today expressed “grave concerns” over escalating violence and loss of life, property and human dignity in the Kotido District of Uganda of the past two weeks and called on Karamojong communities to refrain from violent responses to law-and-order efforts.

“The United Nations urges the restraint of all arms carriers in relation to the ongoing process of disarmament in order to avoid further escalation of insecurity and to minimize the impact on innocent civilians, especially on the lives of children and families,” the acting humanitarian coordinator in Uganda, Theophane Nikyema said in a statement.

An interagency assessment team sent to the area on Tuesday 7 found evidence of significant loss of life and property, including food reserves, in villages within and surrounding the parish of Lopuyo and civilians remain displaced, although some have begun returning home.

“The team received multiple allegations of serious human rights abuses committed on all sides that warrant further detailed investigation,” Mr. Nikyema said. “The team was disturbed by the apparent lack of reconciliatory or confidence building initiatives being undertaken to avoid future such incidents.

He urge national and local authorities to “undertake all measures required to protect the civilian population, including children and women,” and called for a review of the implementation of the disarmament process by the national authorities and the establishment of an adequate monitoring mechanism.

Through its specialized agencies and partners, the UN has already released food and supplies to support civilians affected by the violence. Work is also underway to ensure adequate protection and access to heath services and water and sanitation facilities.

[back to contents]

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Official Website of the ICTY

Srebrenica plan known to Internationals
BETA via B-92
November 2, 2006

PARIS -Carla Del Ponte claims that international observers and politicians knew in advance of the Srebrenica mass murder plans.

In an interview with French weekly Paris Match, the Hague Tribunal Chief Prosecutor said that she wanted to talk about these events in former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević’s indictment, but that they were not accepted as formal evidence in the procedure.

She claims that Milošević, along with former Bosnian Serb leaders and current Hague fugitives, Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, organized the attack on Srebrenica.

“Officials of the international community knew this, talked about it, and did nothing to stop it. That is the unquestionable and main evidence.” Del Ponte said, adding that she has the names of international officials who participated in these meetings.

She also said that former U.S. vice president Al Gore was supposed to testify in reference to Srebrenica, but was not allowed to do so.

Del Ponte once against attacked Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica’s readiness to cooperate with the Tribunal and arrest Ratko Mladić. Paris Match also published a photograph of Mladić taken in 2000 in a Belgrade restaurant. Del Ponte also said that she is suspicious of former U.S. Richard Holbrooke, who allegedly made an agreement with Radovan Karadžić in 1996 and convincing him to leave his political life behind. The Hague Chief Prosecutor said that she is convinced that some kind of agreement still exists between the two.

Krajisnik Judgement Controversy
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
by Edina Becirevic
November 10, 2006

Tribunal prosecutors last week asked the appeals chamber at the Hague tribunal to revise what they called the "manifestly inadequate" sentence for crimes against humanity recently handed down to Momcilo Krajisnik - but have not challenged his acquittal on the ultimate charge of genocide.

The former Bosnian Serb leader was convicted on five counts arising from his role in the early stages of the war in Bosnia in the early Nineties. But his 27-year sentence, prosecutors argued, reflects a "disregard for the inherent gravity of the crimes", and asked that he receive life imprisonment instead.

The former Bosnian Serb assembly president was found guilty of extermination, murder, deportation, forcible transfer of population and persecution of Muslims and Croats in Bosnian Serb territories – crimes perpetrated to "ethnically recompose the territories under [Bosnian Serb] control . . . pursuing this objective through the commission of crimes, all of which were very serious".

Specifically, Krajisnik was found to have had a "crucial" role in the joint Bosnian Serb "criminal enterprise" of persecution, "killing, through murder or extermination, of approximately 3,000 Bosnian Muslims and Bosnians Croats" and the "forcible removal" of more than 100,000.

Stressing the human realities behind these numbers, the judges underline that they comprise "a multitude of individual stories of suffering and ordeal". And they acknowledge that "a sentence, however harsh, will never be able to rectify the wrongs, and will be able to soothe only to a limited extent the suffering of the victims, their feelings of deprivation, anguish, and hopelessness".

Noting the defence's argument that at the age of 61 any significant sentence is in effect a life sentence, and accepting a range of mitigating factors, including good behaviour and the lack of a prior conviction, the court set the sentence at 27 years, with credit for six and a half years served.

The prosecutor's appeal, lodged October 26, seeks to challenge this sentence, and a status conference will be held at the court on December 11.

To the surprise of some observers, however, the prosecutors did not challenge the ruling in the trial chamber's September 27 decision that Krajisnik was not guilty of genocide.

To date, the tribunal has set a very high standard of proof for the highest crime. So far, the only verdict of genocide handed down by the court has been the 2001 ruling against Radislav Krstic over Srebrenica, directly covering the massacre of nearly 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in July 1995.

With the death of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, and with the two principal Bosnian Serb indictees, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, still at large, the Krajisnik verdict was seen by many observers in Bosnia and internationally as a key opportunity for the court to confirm that genocide did in fact take place in Bosnia during the war, extending the crime from the specific case of Srebrenica to the wider campaign of "ethnic cleansing".

Such a ruling would likely have significance for other cases - especially if Karadzic and Mladic are ever brought to trial - and for Bosnia itself and the historic understanding of crimes committed during the war. Without a genocide verdict, fierce debate over the understanding of events during the 1992-95 war will only continue.

The trial chamber concluded that Krajisnik "wanted the Muslim and Croat populations moved out of Bosnian Serb territories in large numbers, and accepted that a heavy price of suffering, death and destruction was necessary to achieve Serb domination and a viable statehood".

However, the court rejected the genocide charge. Proof of genocide requires evidence of the "criminal act" in carrying out genocidal actions and the "criminal mind" in specifically intending to destroy a population as a group.

While the court found that, in the period through 1992 covered by the case, genocidal acts (actus reus) had taken place, there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Krajisnik "had genocidal intent . . . to destroy the Bosnian Muslim or Bosnian Croat ethnic groups as such".

This is, the judges underline, "not to say such evidence does not exist" - but only that on the evidence provided to the court, a "genocidal mental state" (mens rea) could not be confirmed.

Such distinctions underline the caution of legal scholars not to take the ruling as historically definitive. Robert Donia, a historian and expert witness in several trials at the Hague tribunal, says it would be "simply wrong to assume that either the prosecutors or the court's chambers have concluded that no genocide took place in 1992".

Yet the fact that prosecutors have not challenged this decision on appeal suggests acceptance that such evidence cannot reliably be provided.

"We don't see legal grounds for making such an appeal," explained spokesman for the prosecution Anton Nikiforov. "The trial chamber's judgment was quite clear . . . [that] the prosecution did not provide evidence to establish genocidal intent - the main point for proving genocide. If there is no intent, there is no genocide."

And the ruling could set a precedent in the case of any future trial against Karadzic and Mladic.

The cases against the Bonsian Serb leadership are based on the concept of a "joint criminal enterprise" (JCE), implicating all of the senior figures. In the Krajisnik ruling, the judges go beyond the accused to conclude that "considering all the evidence, the Chamber does not find that the evidence supports a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that at any time during the indictment period the common objective of the JCE came to include the crime of genocide".

More broadly, Bosnians and scholars alike may also conclude that the high standard set by the court in proving genocide has as much to do with the definition of the crime as the evidence.

The trial chamber confirms Krajsnik's intent to "separate" the ethnic populations through "forcible removal", persecution and other specific crimes. They find that in his leadership role, he exercised control over the army and police, was fully involved in the decision-making process and fully and regularly informed. There is no doubt that he knew what was happening and not only supported it but personally drove it.

Yet the court concludes that the specific intent to "destroy an ethnic group in whole or in part" cannot be confirmed. In short, there is a clear distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide itself, and in this case only the former charge has been accepted. This distinction is also implicitly confirmed in the 2004 Krstic Srebrenica appeal, in which the appeal chamber emphasised that the genocide charge rested on the massacre and not a broader effort to dislocate or remove people from a region.

While scholars may debate the point, had Milosevic lived, his case may have provided important clarification on the charge. Some analysts had raised concerns that the court's strict definition of genocide made a genocide conviction unlikely in this case, too. (See Milosevic and Genocide: Has the Prosecution Made the Case? Stacy Sullivan, TU 344, 18 February 2004)

But significantly, in a June 16, 2004 procedural ruling in that case, the trial chamber concluded that "there is sufficient evidence that genocide was committed in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi". It goes on to confirm that it "could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was a participant in the joint criminal enterprise, found by the trial chamber in paragraph 246 to include the Bosnian Serb leadership, and that he [Milosevic] shared with its participants the aim and intention to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group".

As historian Donia notes, "This does not carry the weight that a final judgment would have had in this case. But it is nonetheless authoritative in concluding that evidence exists that Milosevic committed genocide, and nothing presented in the defence phase of the case, which was almost over when Milosevic died, was raised that would change this judgment".

This raises the conjecture that, had Milosevic been found guilty of genocide, it may have set a precedent to reach a similar verdict against other participants of the joint criminal enterprise – namely Bosnian Serb leaders, including Krajisnik. Now, the opposite precedent appears to have been established, which prosecutors have concluded they are not in a position to challenge.

Whatever the legal niceties, the complexity of the decisions in The Hague are often lost back in Bosnia, where the verdict is being seized on to make definitive conclusions.

Sabra Kolenovic from Srebrenica, who survived the siege of Srebrenica in 1992 and 1993, is bitterly disappointed in the prosecution's decision not to appeal Krajisnik's acquittal for genocide.

"When they say we were 'ethnically cleansed', it sounds as if somebody came to our house and asked us to leave because we are not good or clean enough. That term is a humiliation for us, who are victims and survivors of genocide," she said. "Genocide did not happen only in Srebrenica and only in 1995 - it also took place in 1992 and 1993."

A number of scholars, including Eric Weitz, Samantha Power, Atila Marko Hoare and many others do not hesitate to qualify crimes committed by Bosnian Serbs against Muslims and Croats as genocide which started as early as in 1992.

There remains the possibility that the International Court of Justice - also in The Hague, which tries cases between states - could rule that a state is guilty of genocide even where the intent of individuals is difficult to prove. A verdict is due next year in the long-standing case brought by Bosnia against Serbia and Montenegro. Yet this is the first time in its 60 years, that ICJ judges have had to interpret the Genocide Convention, and their decision is at this point unknown.

This underlines the importance of the ICTY. Seizing on the Krajisnik ruling, Mladen Ivanic, Bosnian foreign minister and a Bosnian Serb, argued that "considering that Krajisnik was one of the top political leaders of the Bosnian Serbs during the war, this definitely proves that the Serb people or their leaders cannot be accused of genocide".

If Karadzic and Mladic are never brought to justice, he might just be right.

Karadzic’s Ally Faces War Crimes Charges in Sarajevo
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
by Denis Dzidic in Sarajevo
November 10, 2006

The trial of former Bosnian Serb justice minister Momcilo Mandic charged with overseeing several prison camps for non-Serbs during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war, begun this week at Bosnia’s war crimes court in Sarajevo.

Mandic is the most senior Bosnian Serb wartime government official to be tried by this court so far.

At the beginning of the war, he served as deputy interior minister and justice minister in the government of the former Bosnian Serb leader and top war crimes fugitive Radovan Karadzic.

In separate hearings held in Sarajevo over the last several months, Mandic was tried for various alleged financial crimes. Last week, he was sentenced to nine years in prison by the state court for organised crime and corruption.

Mandic was also suspected of providing financial assistance to Karadzic for years after the war, helping him escape justice. But these charges have not been proved in court.

Since he couldn’t stand two trials on separate charges simultaneously, the hearings related to war crimes charges started almost immediately after the judgement for financial fraud was renedered.

The indictment against Mandic alleges that he was responsible for several detention facilities in Bosnia, where non-Serb prisoners were held in appalling conditions, tortured and often killed.

He is also accused of leading the Serb attack on the police training centre in Sarajevo in April 1992, where non-Serb trainers were detained and brutally tortured.

Prosecutor Behaija Krnjic said in his opening statement this week that he would invite about 50 witnesses and submit more than 100 documents which he hopes will prove Mandic’s responisbility for the crimes he’s charged with.

However, the defence said they would bring their star witness, British diplomat Lord Paddy Ashdown, in order to challenge the prosecution claims. The defence said Lord Ashdown visited the camps in question and found that they were not in violation of the Geneva conventions.

The defendant said this week he hopes to have a fair trial and again rejected all allegations in the indictment.

He said his justice ministry “had no jurisdiction over camp prisoners”, and shifted the blame on to the army and police instead.

“ I am innocent and I am here only because of my high position in the war-time government,” he told the judges.

The trial continues.

Denis Dzidic is an IWPR reporter.

Dutch Peacekeepers to Return to Srebrenica
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR)
by Katherine Boyle and Aleksandar Roknic in The Hague
November 10, 2006

Organisers hope the visit will promote reconciliation, but it’s unclear whether the former soldiers will be welcomed.

For over 11 years, the Dutch peacekeeping troops who failed to stop the massacre of more than 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica have faced public reaction ranging from sympathy to scorn and outrage.

Now, a small group of veterans is planning to return to an area many have not seen since the corpses of the Serb army’s victims littered the execution sites surrounding the town.

The trip, organised by the Dutch Veterans’ Institute, the Memorial Centre Camp Westerbork in the Netherlands and the Potocari Memorial Centre in Bosnia, is to take place next autumn.

But it is unclear whether the former soldiers will be welcomed by the area’s residents.

Many Bosnian Muslims still blame Dutchbat III for allowing Serbs to kill thousands of Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995.

The Dutch troops were in the Balkans as part of the UN Protection Force, UNPROFOR, to shield civilians during the bloody wars that pitted Bosnian Serbs against Bosnian Croats and Muslims.

The peacekeeping force at Srebrenica, which was composed of nearly 400 men, was meant to protect the refugees and residents of that Bosnian town, designated a safe haven by the UN in 1993.

However, they offered little or no resistance to the Serb attack.

The resulting massacre was the largest case of genocide to have occurred in Europe since the Second World War.

Wiebe Arts, an historian at the Dutch Veterans’ Institute who served at Srebrenica, is the main organiser for the trip along with Anne Bitterberg of the Memorial Centre Camp Westerbork. He believes both the Dutch soldiers and the victims were “helpless” against Serb forces.

Arts said the veterans’ institute decided to plan the trip after a number of former peacekeepers expressed an interest in returning to Srebrenica.

“It will help [the soldiers] to talk to the survivors of the genocide,” he said. “Some of the soldiers have already been talking to the survivors, and it helps the survivors as well. Last year, some veterans were there on their own and they told us that it’s a good thing to do.”

He was 28 when he served at Srebrenica between January and April 1995, the conflict-ridden months before the massacre. He has not been back since.

“I’m looking forward to it,” he said. “I’m curious about how things have changed, if the houses were rebuilt, if the roads were reconstructed. In that period, time was frozen. Every day was the same, nothing really changed, and I think I would like to see the changes.”

As many as 25 per cent of the soldiers who were at Srebrenica have experienced psychological trauma as a result of their time in the Balkan enclave and the negative media coverage and public opinion after the events, according to Dutch ministry of defence spokesman Roger Vande Wetering. This number is significantly higher than the up to ten per cent of peacekeeping mission veterans who normally suffer from such disorders.

Although Arts hopes the visit will be a healing one for both the soldiers and the local population, he emphasised that the trip is for every soldier who was in Srebrenica before, during or after the massacre, not only those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.

“[The veterans] have a certain image of the area, of the people, of the suffering, of the pain,” he said. “They will see in Srebrenica that progress has been made…It will help them to be there without any threat. They can go where they want to go. They can see what they were not able to see on the other side of the command post.”

Bitterberg acknowledges that there may be some tension between the veterans and members of the local community but hopes the trip will foster greater understanding between survivors and the soldiers.

She believes most will be very welcoming and wants to organise meetings between current residents and the veterans. She has already contacted a psychiatrist who works with both Muslim and Serb women from the area to help smooth the way for those encounters.

“She will ask them if they would like to meet the veterans and will prepare for what might happen if they meet,” said Bitterberg. She explained that veterans will also meet with a specialist before leaving the Netherlands so they are ready for what could be an emotional encounter.

But some survivors of the massacre are still struggling with their horrific memories of Srebrenica. They believe Dutchbat were far from helpless, and hope the visit will help them come to terms with their own complicity.

“[The Dutch soldiers] need to face the truth, because they were also involved in the crime at Srebrenica,” said Zumra Sehomerovic of Women from Srebrenica, an NGO whose mission is to find residents who are still missing.

Sehomerovic, 54, lost her husband and around 40 relatives. The events that occurred that July – and the UN’s impotence – still haunt her.

“I was in the UN camp in Potocari near Srebrenica on July 11, 1995,” said Sehomerovic. “Bosnian Serb soldiers came and started to rape and kill people just because they had a different religion, because they were Muslims. You could smell the stench of human blood.”

Sehomerovic claimed a UN soldier was present when she saw a Serb military man kill a newborn baby. Over 11 years later, she is still looking for her husband’s bones so that he can be buried with dignity.

“As victims, we feel that the Dutch soldiers are participants and perpetrators in crime together with Bosnian Serb soldiers and the Yugoslav People’s Army, JNA,” she said.

Sehomerovic, along with others who lost family members during the massacre, is suing the UN and the Dutch government, alleging that the Dutch troops failed to protect Muslim civilians and were slow to report atrocities to the UN and ask for additional help.

About 7,930 of the victims and their families are represented in the case, which is currently underway at the Hague District Court.

The mayor of Srebrenica, Abduraham Malkic, has said he will welcome Dutchbat to Srebrenica provided they express regret for their lack of action at the time of the massacre. Whether they’ll do so remains unclear at this stage as their plans for the moment centre on seeing how the area has changed and meeting with survivors.

He expressed his disapproval of a citation recently given to Dutchbat veterans by the Dutch government, which said it wanted to recognise the work the soldiers had done under difficult circumstance.

“The government of Holland gave them a medal,” he said. “[The soldiers] were involved in a crime and they know what happened.”

Vande Wetering, however, was keen to point out that the award was not a medal but an insignia. “It’s not a reward for special service or for bravery. That’s a very important distinction,” he said.

He said that several investigations by the Dutch parliament and the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation have revealed that the mistakes made at Srebrenica were more the fault of the UN and some Dutch politicians than the individual soldiers.

“The UN [and the Dutch government] made some important mistakes in judging what was happening over there,” he said. “The UN could have done better and some Dutch ministers could have done better in equipping military personnel in the safe area and giving them a mandate to use violence against people who, according to the rules, should not have been there.”

He also noted that there is a huge difference between those responsible for errors in judgement and those responsible for mass murder.

“During those ten years after the fall of Srebrenica, [the veterans] were blamed by the international media, the Dutch media, the Dutch people, the Dutch politicians,” he added. “As investigations have shown, that’s not right, and they deserve some sort of appreciation to show that they were not judged rightfully during the long period after the fall of the safe area.”

Arts agreed, noting that the press was “very rude” to the soldiers after the fall of the enclave.

“The soldiers did what they could, but the main problem was the chain of command,” he said. “All the damage and bad reporting by the press had a great impact [on the Dutch veterans when it was] the Serbs that did all of the killing.”

Bitterberg said that a number of the veterans who received the insignia have contacted the Memorial Centre Camp Westerbork to ask for advice on what to do with the acknowledgement. Many are hoping to present their insignias to an organisation that benefits survivors of the Srebrenica massacre.

She believes the presentation of the insignias by the Dutch government is a reflection of changing public opinion in the Netherlands regarding Srebrenica. The publication of governmental investigations and a book of personal essays, Memories of Srebrenica, that chronicles the experience of 171 Dutch soldiers who served there, have shed new light on the challenges that they faced, she said.

The memorial centre already has a long waiting list of people who would like to go on the trip, but plans to keep the group small, allowing a maximum of 20 participants. But as veterans will be allowed to bring family or close friends, only about eight soldiers will be able to attend.

If the visit is successful, however, Bitterberg says others will be planned - allowing the veterans to place their own problems and regrets in the context of history.

Katherine Boyle and Aleksandar Roknic are IWPR reporters in The Hague.

[back to contents]

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

Official Website of the ICTR

France declassifies secret intelligence papers on Rwandan genocide
Xinhua General News Service
November 3, 2006

French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has agreed to declassify 105 secret intelligence reports for investigating allegations that French troops helped Rwanda's former Hutu government massacre ethnic Tutsis in a 1994 genocide.

The defense minister made the decision on Tuesday following the recommendation of France's defense secrets consultative commission that reviews request for the release of secret state papers, the ministry said Thursday.

In November 2005, France launched an official investigation into complaints by four Rwandan survivors who accused French troops of complicity in crimes against humanity in the 1994 genocide.

The all declassified documents will be handed over to investigating magistrate Florence Michon, said the defense ministry.

An estimated 800,000 people, mainly Tutsis and moderate Hutus, were killed in the the 100-day slaughter by Hutu militia.

France sent troops to Rwanda at the height of the genocide under a UN mandate, saying it was helping create a secure humanitarian area in the country's southwest.

However, some genocide survivors tell a different story, accusing French troops of rape and murder and of allowing Rwanda government forces and Hutu extremists to enter refugee camps under their protection. France has denied all the accusations.

A Rwandan government-appointed commission has been working since April to investigate charges that France trained and armed those responsible for the genocide.

This month it opened a series of public hearings to help determine whether Rwanda should sue France for genocide-related damages at the World Court.

Rwanda seeks genocide fugitives from UK
Independent Online (IOL)
November 7, 2006

Rwanda is seeking extradition of four suspected masterminds of the country's 1994 genocide, including a medical doctor, who are living and working in Britain, the Justice Minister told Reuters on Tuesday. Rwanda says the wanted men have changed their identities which is hampering efforts to have them arrested and extradited to the tiny central African country to face charges related to the massacre of about 800 000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Rwanda said it was seeking Munyaneza Charles, Celestin Ugirasebuja and Emmanuel Ntezilyayo, all former mayors accused of genocide related crimes. "All these fugitives are living a comfortable life in the United Kingdom but are surely key planners of the 1994 genocide," said Tharcisse Karugarama, Rwanda's Justice Minister. Britain's Home Office said it would investigate any such allegations but would not comment on whether an extradition request had been received for a particular individual. "No one suspected of genocide in Rwanda can expect to enjoy impunity or to find haven in the UK. Where such allegations are made, the government will establish the facts and, in the light of those, take whatever action is appropriate," a Home Office spokesperson said.

A fourth suspect, Vincent Bajinya, worked for London-based charity Praxis until last month. Praxis Director Vaughan Jones said he had not seen Bajinya since October 19, when he received a letter from the BBC asking about the Rwandan. He has now been suspended by the charity. "He was a medical doctor and he was employed by us to run training courses for health professionals who wished to work in the UK, particularly nurses," said Jones. According to officials at the Attorney General's office, Bajinya had changed his name to Dr Brown while Munyaneza, who is still at large, now goes by the name Muneza Charles. "The dilemma we have is that most of these fugitives have changed their identities which make it difficult for us to track them," Karugarama told Reuters.

Jones confirmed that Bajinya had changed his name to Brown after starting work at Praxis. A charge sheet seen by Reuters showed the four faced charges such as conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. Britain opposes the death penalty and the British government requires guarantees from countries that deportees will not be mistreated at home before granting extradition. The death penalty is part of Rwandan criminal law, but Rwanda's cabinet and the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front party have recommended that it be scrapped. Authorities are seeking support across the country, and especially from survivors of the genocide, before a motion to do away with the death penalty is presented in parliament. "The topmost masterminds of the Rwandan genocide are still at large and are mainly living in Europe and some parts of West Africa," Karugarama said. "We can only bring them to stand trial in Rwanda if we abolish the death penalty."

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), a United Nations court based in Tanzania which is trying genocide suspects, winds up its work in two years' time. The remaining fugitives will stand trial in Rwanda.

Additional reporting by David Clarke in London

Arrest Fugitives, West Told Again
AllAfrica.com - The New Times (Kigali)
by Felly Kimenyi
November 8, 2006

The Minister of Justice, Tharcisse Karugarama, has appealed to Western countries to strengthen efforts aimed at apprehending various 1994 R wanda Genocide fugitives scattered in various European cities. Speaking during a one-day conference organised by the Centre for Conflict Management, Karugarama told participants, including several diplomats, that a lot was still needed to bring the fugitives to book.

"As our country today is engaged in talks to have the death penalty removed from our legal provisions, we hope that you will take an upper hand in telling your respective countries to have those people in your capitals apprehended and brought here for trial," Karugarama told the attentive diplomats. He stressed: "These people, whose hands are draped with blood of almost a million people are moving freely in your countries, you should help us convince your countries to get them."

Commenting on the work done by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Minister said that as an individual, he is not satisfied by the work of the tribunal. "Thirty-one cases in more than ten years is not impressive," he observed

He however, commended the Tribunal for its efforts in making the 1994 Rwandan Genocide universally recognized.

Earlier, the ICTR Chief Prosecutor, Bubacar Jallow had said that one of ICTR's greatest achievements is the recent verdict by the tribunal's appeals chamber, which took judicial notice of the Rwandan Genocide. He said that the UN-instituted tribunal, since its establishment, has consistently lobbied UN-member states to recognize the Rwandan Genocide. "Courtesy of our cooperation with the Rwandan government, justice has been delivered as many architects of the Genocide have been convicted, including former Prime-Minister (Jean) Kambanda, among others," Jallow said. Basing on the theme of the conference which hinges on challenging impunity, Jallow said that despite the fact that ICTR was winding up its work, they will not cease to fight impunity.

"We are ad hoc and we shall have to ensure that this culture of impunity is uprooted all over the world," he emphasized. He said that Rwanda was top on the list of countries that are supposed to take the cases that will be transferred from the Tanzania-based tribunal. The ICTR Deputy Registrar, Everard O'Donnell also said that ICTR is working to ensure that the remaining cases are transferred to Rwanda. Karugarama urged ICTR to try and send some of the prominent people to the Rwandan jurisdiction for trial, saying that could set a good precedence to rout the culture of impunity.

Arusha Trial Raises Freedom of Speech Questions
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR)
by Stephanie Nieuwoudt in Arusha
November 9, 2006

The trial of a well-known African singer-songwriter on genocide charges has raised controversial questions about where the line should be drawn between freedom of speech and expression, on the one hand, and incitement to gross human rights violations, on the other. Simon Bikindi, a 52-year-old Hutu, famous in African for his development of a unique ballet company, has gone on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR, in the northern Tanzania town of Arusha, for inciting mass murder through song during Rwanda's 1994 genocide.

He faces six charges, including genocide directed against the country’s Tutsi people. Bikindi, born in Rwere, near Gisenyi, in northwestern Rwanda, stands accused of composing and singing songs, which incited the Interahamwe, a Hutu militia, and Hutu civilians to kill Tutsis. The counts are conspiracy to commit genocide; genocide; complicity in genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; murder; and persecution. Bikindi has been in custody for more than five years. After the 100-day genocide in Rwanda in 1994, in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed, he fled to the Netherlands. He was arrested on July 12, 2001 and sent to Arusha.

At an initial hearing in 2001, Bikindi pleaded not guilty to all charges. After each count was read to him, he said rather quixotically, “Loyally and honestly, I plead not guilty.” According to the charge sheet, Bikindi in the prelude to the genocide worked closely with the then-president Juvénal Habyarimanja, former minister for youth and culture Callixte Nzabonimana and other government and military leaders to plan the execution of Tutsis. Bikindi - the founder of the Irindiro Ballet, a company renowned for its blend of traditional music and dance - is alleged also to have worked with Habyarimanja and Nzabonimana in composing lyrics to songs urging Hutus to kill Tutsis and Hutus who sympathised with Tutus, so-called moderate Hutus. The songs were played many times a day over the radio station Radio Télévision Libre de Mille Collines and over a public address system as Bikindi drove around in his vehicle in Gisenyi.

According to a report by the Hirondelle news agency, which reports extensively on Rwandan affairs, Bikindi incited the Hutu population with the words, “The majority population, it’s you, the Hutu. I am talking to. You know the minority population is the Tutsi. Exterminate quickly the remaining ones.” Bikindi’s trial resumed in September this year. A witness, a former member of the Interahamwe, identified only as “AHB”, told the tribunal that Bikindi had performed in an Interahamwe uniform before at least one meeting of the former ruling party. AHB, serving a life sentence for his role in the genocide, said that although Bikindi’s songs were full of allusions their meaning was clear to any Rwandan - that Tutsis should be slaughtered.

Bikindi’s lawyers argue that the trial is an infringement of his rights of freedom of speech and expression and a denial of his artistic liberty. But prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow told the tribunal that Bikindi used his artistic talent for criminal ends. What has caused particular interest is that this is the first time that a creative artist has been brought before an international criminal court and charged with using that creativity to incite genocide. The question being wrestled with is: how can legal minds determine when the line between freedom of speech and expression, on the one hand, and the dark aim of incitement to genocide, on the other, has been crossed?

Luis Franceschi, media lecturer at the Strathmore University in Nairobi, Kenya, said every person has the right to inform and to perform. But the performer has no right to infringe on the rights of another party. “The media is extremely powerful," he told IWPR. "Negative messages can spread rapidly through a community when such media of mass communication as radio or television are used. If people are exposed to a negative image over and over again, they internalise that message.” Professor Anton Harber, director of the journalism and media studies programme at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, said that if the message of the artist is one of hate against an individual or group, or an act of incitement to commit violence against an individual or group, the line between what is acceptable and what is reprehensible has clearly been crossed.

Harber, former editor of the Mail and Guardian newspaper, a thorn in the flesh of both the pre-1994 apartheid government of South Africa and the current African National Congress administration, said, “Although a message on radio or television cannot in itself lead to murder or genocide, it can feed into a situation where the conditions to commit genocide are in place.” Jane Duncan, executive director of the Johannesburg-based Freedom of Expression Institute, said that hate speech is defined differently in different countries. Certain basic components must be present to justify limiting a person’s freedom of expression. The most important element of hate speech is obviously that it advocates hatred. Secondly, the hatred has to be in relation to particular social characteristics, such as religion, race, gender or ethnicity. Thirdly, there must be an element of incitement towards particular attitudes or actions.

Duncan said there is a great deal of debate internationally on how hate speech should be defined - even if all three elements are present. Many hate speech laws recognise exemptions for "artistic and scientific speech", even if the speech may be considered to be hateful and inciting. “Governments tend to introduce legislation that is too broad," she said, leading to censorship of what is merely controversial speech. In the process, governments use such legislation to shield themselves or powerful social interests from criticism. They can also use it against individuals and groups deemed to threaten authority. "Selective application - determined by those in power - is the main problem with hate speech legislation,” she said. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1976, states that any “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Duncan said that this covenant sets three different standards for judging hate speech, from a weak test to a strict one - and these present many advocates of free speech with problems.

The weakest tests are incitement to discrimination and hostility. But these terms are very subjective, making it difficult to prove a link between speech and the formation of an attitude. The stronger and more objective test is incitement to violence. “However, even within this approach towards hate speech, there are nuances," Duncan told IWPR. "Many free expression advocates, including my own institute, argue that the most objective test for defining hate speech involves advocacy of hatred on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or religion to imminent violence. “The insertion of the word 'imminent' is important because there needs to be proof that the speech actually caused the violence, rather than there being an extremely vague and insubstantial link between the speech and a violent act.” She identified the Rwanda tribunal’s “tendency to adopt a broader rather than a narrower approach towards defining hate speech” as a source of difficulty. “As a result, in prosecuting offenders the Rwanda tribunal has set potentially controversial international precedents for freedom of expression,” she said.

Because of the horrendous nature of the Rwandan genocide, said Duncan, “many free speech advocates have found these problems difficult to bring up, but raise them we must. If we do not, we may land up with international precedents being set that may be used in censorious ways in other contexts”. In earlier judgments, the ICTR convicted three major media players. They were Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean- Bosco Barayagwiza, who were in charge of Radio Télévision Libre de Mille Collines, and Hassan Ngeze, director and editor of the newspaper Kangura. They were convicted on charges of genocide, incitement to genocide and crimes against humanity. Nahimana and Ngeze were imprisoned for life and Barayagwiza for 35 years. Ngeze was prosecuted for articles written years before the genocide began.

In its report “Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda”, Human Rights Watch described Kangura as “one of the most virulent voices of hate”. The newspaper began its hate campaign as early as 1990, soon after the invasion of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, RPF, army from neighbouring Uganda. The RPF was formed by Tutsis in exile and was headed by the charismatic Paul Kagame who became president of Rwanda after his rebels stopped the genocide. He holds this position to this day. “The legal reasoning for these prosecutions has been questioned for being over-broad,” said Duncan. “While these media certainly propagated hate-filled messages, they were but one element in the genocide, and it is difficult to argue that the genocide was a spontaneous reaction to the broadcasts, which would need to be the case for the ‘imminent violence’ test to be met.”

The problem created by these judgments can be seen in the fact that many governments have since cited them as legal precedent and used them to impose various legal restrictions on freedom of expression, arguing that hate speech in their countries may lead to violence similar to that experienced in Rwanda. “As the [New York-based] Committee to Protect Journalists [which promotes international press freedom] has noted, the misuse of hate speech laws by repressive African governments may well be a greater threat right now than hate speech itself,” said Duncan.

She said similar dilemmas and unfortunate consequences may arise if Simon Bikindi is convicted. “While there is no doubt that his songs fed into the general hysteria that fuelled the genocide, it may be difficult to prove a causal link between his songs and the genocide," she said. “Songs, by their very nature, are metaphorical. This came out in testimony in his trial where one witness referred to his songs as ‘full of allusions and images, the meaning of which was clear to any Rwandan’. “Direct incitement of particular violent acts would need to be proved, which may not be possible given the artistic nature of his songs. If he is convicted, it may lead to repressive governments using this as an excuse to ban musicians who are critical of the status quo.”

It seems that the chamber judges in the Bikindi case are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they find him not guilty of inciting genocide with his songs, victims of the 1994 slaughter are certain to cry foul. But if they convict him, the unintended consequence might be repression elsewhere of legitimate forms of political and artistic expression. In reaching their verdict, they will clearly need the wisdom of Solomon.
Stephanie Nieuwoudt is a freelance South African journalist base din Nairobi who frequently reports from Arusha on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Catholic nun jailed for 30 years for her part in Rwandan genocide
Associated Press via USA Today
November 9, 2006

NAIROBI , Kenya (AP) — A Catholic nun has been sentenced to 30 years in jail for helping militias kill hundreds of people hiding in a hospital during Rwanda's 1994 genocide, an official said Friday.

Theophister Mukakibibi was sentenced by a traditional gacaca court for helping Hutu militiamen to kill ethnic Tutsis seeking refuge from the slaughter in Butare hospital, where she worked. "She was responsible for selecting Tutsis and would throw them out of the hospital and the militia would then kill them," said Jean Baptiste Ndahumba, president of the local gacaca court in Butare town. "This nun was organizing people to be killed." She was jailed Thursday.

She would also hold regular meetings with Hutu extremist groups and denied food to Tutsis hiding in the hospital, he said by telephone. About 20 people testified against her, he added. In the massacre, 100,000 people were killed in the southeastern prefecture of Butare. A number of Hutu Catholic and Protestant church leaders are alleged to have played significant roles in the east African nation's 100-day massacre. More than a half-million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by the militia, orchestrated by the extremist Hutu government then in power. The genocide ended when Tutsi rebels toppled the government.

The gacaca courts are intended to speed up the genocide trials and are separate from the conventional judicial system. With nine judges from the local community, the traditional courts were also established to help heal divisions but can impose life sentences.

Some 63,000 genocide suspects are detained in Rwanda, and justice authorities say that at least 761,000 people should stand trial for their role in the slaughter and chaos that came with it. The suspects represent 9.2% of Rwanda's estimated 8.2 million people.

A U.N. tribunal based in neighboring Tanzania is trying those accused of masterminding the genocide in Rwanda. Three members of the clergy have appeared at the tribunal.

In 2001, two Rwandan Catholic nuns were convicted by a Belgian court for aiding and abetting the mass murders. A Roman Catholic priest is on trial before the Tanzania-based U.N. tribunal, accused of ordering the slaughter of 2,000 people who sought refuge in his church. Rwanda's genocide began hours after a plane carrying President Juvenal Habyarimana was mysteriously shot down as it approached the capital, Kigali, on the evening of April 6, 1994. The leader was returning from power-sharing talks with Tutsi-led rebels. The genocide ended after rebels, led by current President Paul Kagame, ousted the extremist Hutu government that had orchestrated the slaughter.

[back to contents]

Iraqi High Tribunal

Official Website of the Iraqi High Tribunal
Grotian Moment: The Saddam Hussein Trial Blog

Saddam's trial a challenge from the start
USA Today
by Jim Michaels
November 6, 2006

Iraq 's ability to fairly judge Saddam Hussein was on trial as much as the former dictator over the past year.

The trial faced daunting challenges. The streets of Baghdad have grown more violent. Defense attorneys were targeted outside the courtroom, and judges struggled to maintain order inside. Iraqis had no modern tradition of an independent judiciary, but insisted on holding the trial within their borders.

Despite this, some legal experts say the tribunal managed to conduct a reasonably fair trial. Dozens of witnesses were heard, and more than 1,000 pages of evidence were entered into the record.

"I don't think it was a miscarriage of justice," said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school in Cleveland who helped train the judges.

On Sunday, President Bush called the results of the trial of Saddam and his seven co-defendants on charges of crimes against humanity a triumph of the rule of law. "It's a major achievement for Iraq's young democracy and its constitutional government," he said.

Rarely has a former leader been tried by his countrymen. Historically, war crimes trials have been conducted by an international court, as in the case of Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevic, or victorious nations, such as the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

The Iraqi High Tribunal, set up with U.S. assistance, is a hybrid. Saddam was accused of crimes against humanity, a charge derived from international law. The court procedures, however, were based mostly on Iraqi tradition and law.

Saddam and his seven co-defendants were charged in connection with the government's response to a botched assassination attempt in 1982 when his convoy was attacked as it drove through the mostly Shiite village of Dujail.

The government responded by razing orchards around the village and rounding up 148 villagers, who were sentenced to death.

Iraqis were adamant about trying Saddam in Iraq, Scharf said. It gave the Iraqis a "sense of ownership" over bringing Saddam to justice, Scharf said.

Some legal experts saw that as an uphill fight. Iraq has no modern tradition of an independent judiciary. "There was really a lack of capacity and experience," said Nehal Bhuta, a Human Rights Watch attorney who observed portions of the trial in Baghdad.

Iraq's political instability and violence made holding a credible trial even more difficult. The trial had to be held in an extensively fortified courtroom in the high-security Green Zone. Three defense lawyers were killed. "If people thought they were going to have a trial in the middle of an all-out war they would have thought twice about it," Scharf said.

The court, which met from October 2005 to July 2006, was hardly a model of decorum. Iraqi courtroom procedures allow defendants to address the court and question witnesses. The first chief judge, Rizgar Mohammed Amin, quit in the middle of the trial. He had been criticized for allowing Saddam and his co-defendants to rant in court.

The sessions were marked by outbursts from the defendants, boycotts by Saddam and his defense attorneys and just plain bizarre behavior. Some defendants, including Saddam, were ejected from the courtroom. After boycotting two hearings in February, the former Iraqi dictator entered the courtroom, shouting, "Down with Bush. Long live Iraq." In another session, Saddam advocated attacks on U.S. forces.

Tariq Aziz, once a powerful member of Saddam's inner circle, testified in May in pajamas.

Supporters of the tribunal say Saddam and his attorneys were given many opportunities to mount a defense. They alternated between challenging the legitimacy of the court and undermining prosecution attempts to personally link Saddam to the retaliation.

"I am the president of Iraq by the will of Iraqis," Saddam thundered in May when asked to enter a plea.

Prosecutors needed to prove that Saddam personally approved the torture and executions without fair trials or knew about those actions and did nothing to stop them.

"There was no evidence of a direct order" from Saddam to retaliate against the village, said Marieke Wierda of the International Center for Transitional Justice, a New York-based group that helps countries heal by addressing human rights abuses. Nor did the prosecution establish in court that Iraq's system was so repressive that turning the villagers over to the Revolutionary Court was equivalent to a summary execution, she said.

Prosecutors did, however, introduce documents showing Saddam signed execution warrants drafted by the Revolutionary Court against the 148 villagers.

And in March, Saddam admitted he personally approved the razing of orchards. "I signed that decision," he said. "And nobody forced me to sign that decision."

Even though the comments hurt Saddam's case, he probably couldn't prevent himself from blurting it out, Scharf said, because he still sees himself as Iraq's leader. "He just couldn't control himself," Scharf said.

Judging the trial of Saddam
International Herald Tribune
by Julia Preston
November 6, 2006

The yearlong trial that ended with a sentence of death by hanging for Saddam Hussein had serious legal flaws that left doubts about whether he was allowed to present a full defense, international legal experts said.

Lawyers and human rights advocates broadly agreed that the Iraqi tribunal's proceedings frequently fell short of international standards for war crimes cases. But even critics of the trial said the five Iraqi judges who heard the case had made a reasonable effort to conduct a fair trial in the face of sustained pressure from Iraqi political leaders for a swift death sentence. American lawyers pointed to substantial evidence offered by the prosecution implicating Saddam in the crimes against humanity with which he was charged.

"Did this meet the standards of international justice?" asked Jonathan Drimmer, who teaches war crimes law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. "The answer is no. But to look at the ultimate verdict, it certainly is consistent with the evidence presented."

Miranda Sissons, a senior associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice, a group that has been severely critical of some of the trial proceedings, said, "This was not a sham trial," and added, "The judges are doing their best to try this case to an entirely new standard for Iraq”.

In a trial that opened Oct. 19, 2005, Saddam was accused along with seven co-defendants in the executions of 148 men and boys in the town of Dujail, 55 kilometers, or 35 miles, north of Baghdad, in 1982. The mass killings came after an apparent assassination attempt against the Iraqi leader.

Whether the trial is seen to have been fair is a vital issue for the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. When the tribunal was created in December 2003, American and Iraqi officials hoped that it would be a leap forward for the justice system in Iraq, left moribund under Saddam's dictatorial rule, and would also help bring some reconciliation between the country's majority Shiites and minority Sunnis.

Since then, the country has descended into daily bloody factional strife. The trial was fair enough to justify the elation Sunday among Iraqis who suffered under Saddam's rule but also had enough defects that Saddam's Sunni supporters, who dominated his government, could still claim that it had been victor's justice, as Saddam's defense lawyers, led by Khalil al-Dulaimi, said after the verdict Sunday.

The trial was troubled by extreme security issues. Three defense lawyers were assassinated as it was unfolding.

Critics cited frequent efforts by Iraqi officials to speed up the trial and influence its outcome. The first chief judge, Rizgar Muhammad Amin, an Iraqi Kurd, resigned in January, saying he was tired of criticism from top Iraqi officials of his handling of the case. A second judge who was in line to succeed him was barred from becoming chief judge because he was said to have had ties to Saddam's Baath Party, said human rights advocates who have been following the trial.

"The message by politicians and the executive has been quite unambiguously that if the judges do not do what public expectation demands, they will be in trouble," Sissons said. "Iraqi officials have sent the message, 'We can reach into this court.'"

Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman, who took over as chief judge and presided to the end of the trial, was much less tolerant than his predecessor of outbursts in the courtroom by Saddam and other defendants, who challenged the legitimacy of the court and boycotted many trial sessions. The chief judge frequently allowed the prosecutor, Jaafar al- Mousawi, to summon evidence and witnesses without showing them first to defense lawyers, violating a basic tenet of fair trial procedure.

"There was a certain amount of trial by ambush," said Richard Dicker, who monitored the trial for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based group.

On June 13, Abdel-Rahman abruptly cut off the defense case, barring defense lawyers from calling additional witnesses. "There was a lack of impartiality and judicial temperament" from Abdel-Rahman, Dicker charged.

However, several American criminal lawyers said the prosecution marshaled surprisingly convincing documents to support the case, including documents showing Saddam's signature on orders of execution for many of the victims.

"Saddam was convicted on the strength of his own documents," said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law who advised the tribunal during the trial.

However, many trial observers were withholding final opinions because the Iraqi judges have not yet issued their written judgment. The judgment, which should be a voluminous document in which the judges explain their legal reasoning for each of the verdicts, is expected to be issued sometime this week.

American lawyers in Iraq dismissed suspicions that the verdict had been delayed to give the Bush administration a political victory in Iraq close to elections Tuesday. They said the verdict was postponed from its original Oct. 16 date because the judges were still writing it.

The tribunal also issued death sentences for two co-defendants, Barzan al-Tikriti, Saddam's half-brother, the former chief of Iraqi domestic intelligence, and Awad al-Bandar, president of Saddam's revolutionary court. One defendant was sentenced to life in prison, three defendants will serve 15 years in jail, and one was acquitted.

Saddam acknowledged that he had ordered the crackdown in Dujail, but argued that it was justified because the men who apparently tried to kill him were Shiite militants backed by Iran, at a time when Iraq was at war with Iran.

Accusations by Saddam's supporters that the trial was manipulated by U.S. officials were not borne out, American lawyers who followed the case said. An office organized by the U.S. Embassy helped the tribunal with the investigation and provided legal and logistical assistance. But the Iraqi judges frequently ignored their advice and generally insisted on sticking with familiar procedures from the Iraqi justice system.

"The U.S. government was not the puppet master of this tribunal," Scharf said.

Blair opposes death penalty

Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday he opposed the death penalty for Saddam Hussein but that the deposed Iraqi leader's trial had reminded the world of his brutality, The Associated Press reported from London.

Asked about Saddam's sentence at his monthly press conference, Blair noted that Britain opposed the death penalty "whether it's Saddam or anyone else."

Blair Against Saddam's Death
Associated Press via Caymanian Compass
November 7, 2006

LONDON (AP) – Tony Blair said he opposes the death penalty for Saddam Hussein – a reluctant admission that on this issue, the British prime minister stands by colleagues in the European Union and not with his American allies.

But EU opposition to the sentence seems to be more a reaffirmation of principles than a serious challenge that could affect the imposition of the sentence.

Reporters at Blair’s monthly news conference on Monday had to press him hard to elicit an acknowledgment that his long–standing opposition to capital punishment also applied to the deposed dictator. Every time he mentioned his disapproval of the punishment, he added a lengthy condemnation of Saddam’s brutality, and he made it clear he did not intend any protest of the sentence.

"There are other and bigger issues to talk about," he said. "The trial of Saddam gives us a chance to see again what the past in Iraq was, the brutality, the tyranny, the hundreds of thousands of people he killed, the wars in which there were a million casualties."

Nonetheless, Blair’s stance puts him at odds with U.S. President George W. Bush, who praised the death sentence Sunday as "a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."

Blair’s view was widely shared by European leaders, many of whom noted their opposition to capital punishment but welcomed Saddam’s trial and conviction – as did the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand.

The EU’s 25 governments are strongly opposed to the death penalty and have often appealed to foreign governments on behalf of Europeans facing execution abroad. Any country hoping to join the bloc must abolish capital punishment; when Turkey eliminated the death penalty in 2002, it was seen as a big victory for Europe’s ability to influence potential members.

A U.N. rights expert urged Iraqi authorities not to carry out Saddam Hussein’s death sentence, expressing concern about the consequences the judgment could have on the volatile situation in Iraq. Leandro Despouy, the U.N. special investigator on the independence of judges and lawyers, also criticized the fairness of the trial and called for the establishment of an independent, impartial and international tribunal supported by the global body to either retry or handle the appeals process.

Analysts in the Arab world, meanwhile, said they were less concerned about Saddam’s fate than about how his downfall could affect the rest of the Middle East and its rulers.

"His fall has shaken regimes and thrones and scared big butchers," Abdel Rahman al–Rashed, a Saudi Arabian columnist and the head of the pan Arab Al–Arabiya television, wrote in the prominent pan Arab daily Asharq al–Awsat.

But it has also shown that changing dictatorial leaders is so costly that it could force "the world to remain silent on bad regimes," he wrote.

European leaders said the heinousness of Saddam’s crimes did not change their view that state–sponsored killing was wrong. Several warned that putting the former leader to death could worsen sectarian tensions and lead to more bloodshed in Iraq.

"A country ravaged by violence and death does not need more violence and especially not a state–orchestrated execution," said Terry Davis, secretary–general of the Council of Europe. "Saddam Hussein is a criminal and should not be allowed to become a martyr."

Italian Premier Romano Prodi said the guilty verdict mirrored the world community’s judgment about Saddam, but emphasized Rome’s opposition to capital punishment.

" Italy is against the death penalty and so even in such a dramatic case as Saddam Hussein, we still think that the death penalty must not be put into action," he said after meeting Blair in London.

Pope Benedict XVI’s top cardinal said in a radio address that killing the former Iraqi leader was against Christian teaching.

"God gave us life and only God can take it away," Cardinal Renato Martino said on Vatican Radio, adding that had Saddam been put in the hands of an international court, he would not have faced the death penalty.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that while it was "right and important" that Saddam had faced trial, her country opposes his execution.

"It is clear that there is fundamental skepticism and rejection of the death penalty," Merkel said.

As the foremost European supporter of the Iraq war, though, Blair is in a tougher spot since it is awkward for him to criticize the death of a leader he went to war to topple.

Blair appeared visibly rattled when pressed on the question, responding several times with the general statement that Britain opposed capital punishment. Only under persistent grilling did he eventually say: "We are against the death penalty, whether it’s Saddam or anybody else."

He said the fact the trial had occurred was an encouraging indication that Iraq was on a democratic path.

"What I think is important about this is to recognize that this trial of Saddam has been handled by the Iraqis themselves, and they will take the decision about it," he said. "It does give us a very clear reminder of the total and barbaric brutality of that regime, the numbers of people that died, hundreds of thousands of them. ... That doesn’t alter our position on the death penalty at all, but it simply does give us a reminder of that."

Mubarak warns against hanging Saddam
Associated Press via Yahoo! News
November 10, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - Egypt's president came out strongly against hanging Saddam Hussein, saying in remarks published Thursday that it could make Iraq explode into more violence. But Iraq's prime minister said the execution could take place by the end of the year.

The statement from President Hosni Mubarak of Eygpt broke an uneasy silence among Arab leaders over Sunday's verdict by an Iraqi court, which convicted Saddam for the killings of some 150 Shiite Muslims after an assassination attempt against him in 1982.

Mubarak, a regional heavyweight and a top U.S. ally, appeared to speak for many in the region who are uneasy about seeing a former Arab president tried and sentenced — no matter how much they disliked Saddam's regime. Analysts suggested Arab leaders are worried about the precedent an execution would set, and said Arab publics often identify with their leaders.

"Carrying out this verdict will explode violence like waterfalls in Iraq," Mubarak was quoted as saying by state-run Egyptian newspapers. Hanging Saddam "will transform ( Iraq) into blood pools and lead to a deepening of the sectarian and ethnic conflicts."

Saddam has appealed, and is being separately tried for genocide in the deaths of about 180,000 Iraqi Kurds, mostly civilians, during a crackdown in the late 1980s.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirmed this week that both legal procedures would go on simultaneously and that Iraq's three-man presidential council is pledged to allow Saddam's hanging if the court rejects the appeal.

"The way I understand the law that we passed ... the execution of the sentence should happen within a month, one month," al-Maliki told the British Broadcasting Corp. "I expect it to happen before the end of this year."

Leaders in Saudi Arabia, like Egypt a regional powerhouse and U.S. ally, have all but stayed quiet about Saddam's sentencing. The presidents of Libya and Syria have also avoided personal comment, though the Syria goverment said it opposes the sentence because it was delivered while U.S. troops were occupying Iraq.

"The court acted under the shadow of occupation," Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal said Sunday. "Therefore, the entire court is rejected because the occupation itself is rejected."

Jordan took a neutral line. "As far as we're concerned here in Jordan, this is an internal Iraqi affair," government spokesman Nasser Judeh said this week.

While many in the Middle East rejoiced at Saddam's ouster in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, spiraling violence in Iraq and the nearly unprecedented public trial against an Arab ruler have left many in the region dubious.

"Saddam's yearlong trial has shocked Arab leaders, including those who are against him, as well as the masses," said Egyptian political analyst Diaa Rashwan.

"We've witnessed leaders being assassinated, but never being judged in the Arab world," he said, adding that many Arabs also perceived the trial as taking place at the whim of the occupying U.S army.

Other analysts alluded to a peer solidarity among Arab rulers.

Dalal el-Bizri, a Lebanese sociologist and political columnist, noted the "vast authority that Arab leaders have, their endless stay in power, their cohesion."

Mubarak has been at the helm of the most populous Arab state since 1981. He has repeatedly warned against worsening violence in Iraq, and voiced concern about tensions spilling over to the rest of the region.

He and Saddam, who rose to power in 1979, rarely shared the same views during the decades they both spent in office, but in 1991 Mubarak offered the Iraqi leader a haven in exile to avert the Gulf War.

Saddam declined, and Egypt sided with the United States during the war. Mubarak also initially condemned the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, but blamed the offensive on what he described as Saddam's failure to cooperate with the international community.

El-Bizri said Arab populations tend to strongly associate with their presidents. "Their presence is felt everywhere. It causes a sick relationship between the people and their leaders," she said.

"No matter how despotic a leader is, he becomes a symbol of his country, or even synonymous with it," she said, explaining why many Iraqis and other Arabs were uncomfortable seeing an agitated Saddam arguing in the Iraqi court.

Some hoped the former president's lengthy prosecution and sentencing would pave the way for more accountability in the region.

"Saddam Hussein deserves to be punished for the crimes that he committed against all the Iraqi people," Walid Jumblatt, the leader of Lebanon's Druse community, told reporters. He said Syrian leaders also deserve punishment for allegedly killing former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

[back to contents]

Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) &
Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Offical Website of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
The Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme

War Crimes Trial
AllAfrica.com - The Independent (Freetown)
by Alpha Kargbo
November 10, 2006

The Trial Chamber of the Special Court for war crimes in Freetown has scheduled 7 December for closing arguments in the trial of indictees of the Armed Forces Ruling Council.

The final Defence witness has testified in the trial of three alleged former leaders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC).

Following procedural matters , the Defence case has come to an end.

Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu each face a 14-count indictment alleging war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. All of the accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The AFRC-Accused trial began in March 2006. The Prosecution rested its case in November 2005.

Since the opening of the Defence case in June 2006, Judges of Trial Chamber II have heard testimonies from 87 witnesses. This included evidence from First Accused Tamba Brima, who testified in his own defence. The leader of the Armed Forces Ruling Council Lt .Col. Johnny Paul Koroma is presumed dead. There has been no trace of him. This is the second Defence case to close in trials at the Special Court.

Last month, the Defence rested its case of The Prosecutor vs. Sam Hinga Norman, Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa (the Civil Defence Force -Accused). The CDF was a pro- government militia during the war. It was set up to resist onslaughts of the Revolutionary United Front that fought successive governments.

Meanwhile, in the case of The Prosecutor vs. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao (the RUF-Accused), Trial Chamber I has handed down its oral decision on Defence Motions for Judgment of Acquittal. The Trial Chamber ordered the Accused to defend on all 14 counts in the indictment. It ruled, however, that the Defence would not need to present a case regarding a number of towns and villages listed in the particulars where, in the Court's view, the Prosecution had not led evidence capable of sustaining a conviction.

Charles Taylor former leader of Liberia who is alleged to have supported the revolutionary United Front is on trail at the Hague. He is the first African leader to be tried for war crimes at The Hague.

The case of The Prosecutor vs. Charles Ghankay Taylor, which is being conducted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone at The Hague, is still in the pre-trial phase and is tentatively scheduled to begin on 2 April 2007.

[back to contents]

United States

Guantanamo prisoners challenge new terrorism law
Reuters
by James Vicini
November 1, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawyers for some Guantanamo prisoners urged a U.S. appeals court on Wednesday to strike down as unconstitutional a key part of the tough anti-terrorism law that President George W. Bush signed last month.

They said the new law does not give the U.S. government the power to arrest suspects overseas and imprison them indefinitely without any charges and without allowing them to challenge their detention in U.S. court.

A provision of the law unconstitutionally suspends the right under habeas corpus, a long-standing principle of American law, of the detainees to contest their imprisonment, they said.

The attorneys, who represented six Algerians captured in Bosnia who have been in U.S. custody since 2002, said the authors of the U.S. Constitution recognized that people held in prison without being charged "must retain the right to obtain a court inquiry."

The Bush administration says the new law means the appeals court no longer has jurisdiction to consider pending appeals filed by scores of inmates at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The law states: "No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined ... to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

Immediately after Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, the U.S. Justice Department informed the courts they no longer had jurisdiction over some 200 cases covering more than 400 Guantanamo prisoners.

The Bush administration is expected to respond in the case by November 13.

The court could rule later this year or early next year, but any decision likely will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would have the final word on the law's constitutionality.

The law was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling in June that said Bush lacked the legislative authority in setting up his first system of military commissions after the September 11 attacks.

That prompted Bush to go to Congress to get authority under the new law authorizing tough interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects under a new system of military commissions.

U.S. seeks to silence terror suspect
Associated Press
by Matt Apuzzo
November 3, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh - but undefined - interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

The documents, which were first reported by The Washington Post, were filed in opposition to a request that terror suspect Majid Khan should be given access to an attorney. Khan, 26, immigrated from Pakistan and graduated high school in Maryland.

According to documents filed on his behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003. During more than three years in CIA custody, Khan was subjected to interrogation techniques that defense attorneys suggest amounted to torture.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is among several advocacy groups challenging that law. They say the Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department argues that civilian courts no longer have jurisdiction to intervene in the case. They say keeping details about the CIA program secret is essential because national security is at stake.

"Information obtained through the program has provided the United States with one of the most useful tools in combating terrorist threats to the national security," the government argued in court documents.

"It has shed light on probable targets and likely methods for attacks on the United States, has led to the disruption of terrorist plots against the United States and its allies, and has gathered information that has played a role in the capture and questioning of senior al-Qaida operatives," it said.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to "conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not indicated when he will rule.

CIA seeks more restrictions on senior al Qaeda suspects at Guantánamo
Miami Herald
by Carol Rosenberg
November 7, 2006

Even as 14 top al Qaeda suspects are in U.S. military custody, the CIA is still trying to impose secrecy around the high-value detainees now held at the Guantánamo Bay detention center, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The arena for the effort is the U.S. District Court of Judge Reggie Walton, in Washington, D.C., where the government is seeking a still-undefined restriction on the attorney-client relationship in the case of Guantánamo captive Majid Khan, one of the 14.

The CIA argues that details of the man's three years of detention and interrogation at so-called ''black sites,'' out of reach of the International Red Cross, are national security secrets.

Khan's attorney, Gita Gutierrez, argues that the Bush administration's intent is not to safeguard national security but to cover up three years of extra-judicial detention of her client, to ``conceal illegal or embarrassing Executive conduct.''

Khan, 26, was captured in his native Pakistan in 2003. The White House says he is linked to a series of unhatched plots: to blow up gas stations in the United States, to poison U.S. water supplies and to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

It is not known where he was held or how he was interrogated to establish these links; and he has so far not been charged with a crime.

At least some of the 14 men whom President Bush ordered handed over to the military this summer were reportedly submitted to harsh, classified interrogation techniques, including a simulated drowning to break their will, called ``water-boarding.''

Moreover, court documents filed by the government suggest that the 14 newest arrivals at Guantánamo, among them alleged Osama bin Laden deputies, would never be integrated into the general population of 437 or so captives -- for fear they would tell other captives about their secret confinement, who could in turn pass on the details to their lawyers.

In seeking to redefine attorney-client contacts, Justice Department lawyers offered a seven-page affidavit from a CIA officer named Marilyn Dorn, who describes herself as ``the Information Review Officer for the National Clandestine Service.''

Her office, she says, decides what secret CIA documents can be provided to civilian U.S. courts without jeopardizing ``CIA interests, personnel or facilities.''

Because Khan was held for three years in a ''top secret'' program, she says ``he may have come into possession of information, including locations of detention, conditions of detention and alternative interrogation techniques.''

Attorney disclosure in court records of those details, she argues, could compromise clandestine relationships between the U.S. and its foreign allies.

All civilian lawyers at Guantánamo already go through a rigorous security screening before they are allowed to visit; they then must turn over their notes to the military before they can leave the remote Navy base in southeast Cuba. They can only disclose their contents by permission of a classification review team set up by the federal courts.

Now, the CIA seeks a more restrictive review and disclosure process whose ''particulars . . . are still being worked out,'' says Justice Department spokeswoman Kathleen Blomquist.

She could not say whether the government will again propose to eavesdrop on attorney-client meetings, authority a court refused to grant three years ago.

The Khan case also illustrates the ongoing Bush administration effort to curb civilian court intrusion at Guantánamo, a process that has evolved fitfully around two and a half years of court rulings on detainee rights:

First, it says, Khan, a Maryland high school graduate, cannot sue for his freedom in U.S. District Court because Congress has stripped Guantánamo captives of standard habeas corpus recourse.

If he does see a civilian lawyer, it adds, the contents of what he says should be subject to top-secret-style protections more severe than current, ongoing secrecy reviews.

''As each day passes, the likelihood increases that Petitioner Khan will suffer from memory loss and other psychological injuries that will impede his capacity to assist in his representation,'' his lawyer argues.

Counters Blomquist, the Justice Department spokeswoman: ``Khan's and other cases may involve unique, potentially highly classified information not involved in prior Guantánamo cases.''

Gutierrez is already acquainted with the Bush administration's tough interrogation policies through an earlier Guantánamo client -- a Saudi named Mohammed al Qahtani whom the Pentagon subjected to such severe interrogation techniques at the Navy base that FBI agents protested to headquarters.

President Bush identified the 14 men, with 10 different nationalities, around Labor Day as part of a campaign to promote a new plan for holding war crimes trials at Guantánamo to replace an earlier scheme ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

None have been charged and none have yet seen lawyers, although they were described by the White House two months ago as the masterminds and financiers of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors in Yemen and the Oct. 12, 2002, bomb attack that killed 202 people at a popular resort area in Bali.

The filing also reflects government concerns that the new arrivals might broadcast CIA secrets among the captives, through what commanders call the DIN, Detainee Information Network.

Guantánamo commanders and guards have noted for some time that captives spread the news as they have been shuttled between cellblocks, the hospitals and different accommodations designed to reward good behavior.

Prison camp commanders won't say where Khan and the other new arrivals are being housed, but say their prison conditions are the same as longer-held captives at Guantánamo.

Detainees may lose access to lawyers
Associated Press
by Andrew O. Selsky
November 10, 2006

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- Guantanamo Bay prisoners could soon lose access to their lawyers - one of their only contacts with the outside world - because of a new law that eliminates their right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, the lawyers fear.

Even as lawyers are asking a federal court to rule that provisions of the law are unconstitutional, the government is seeking to restrict their access to the isolated Guantanamo military base. And for at least one detainee, the government is trying to ban civilian lawyers altogether.

For now, Guantanamo officials are holding off on restricting lawyers' access to the U.S. base in southeast Cuba, Navy Commander Robert Durand told The Associated Press. Lawyers say doing so will further shroud the detention center in secrecy and could invite abuses.

"If attorneys were kept from visiting Guantanamo, the only information regarding conditions there would be provided by the government," said Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, a New York lawyer whose Bahraini client tried to commit suicide at Guantanamo last year as Colangelo-Bryan was visiting him.

Word of hunger strikes, detainee despair, solitary confinement and other details has come from attorneys who have developed relationships with prisoners - many of whom have been held for almost five years.

Aside from lawyers, the 430 detainees now have personal contact with military guards, interrogators and get an occasional visit from the Red Cross, which keeps its findings confidential. Journalists are prohibited from speaking with detainees. Relatives cannot visit, although they can exchange letters censored by the U.S. military.

The lawyers' main accusation is that the new Military Commissions Act denies their clients the most basic tenet of law - the right to challenge one's imprisonment.

Signed last month by President Bush, the law says no court can hear a petition of habeas corpus - a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution - from any non-U.S. citizen determined to be an enemy combatant or held under suspicion of being one.

Habeas corpus, which has been around since the Magna Carta of 1215, obligates officials to explain in court why those arrested are being held.

"This law doesn't apply only to Guantanamo," said Gaillard Hunt, an attorney for a detained Pakistani businessman. "It applies to every non-U.S. citizen. It empowers the executive branch to get anyone anywhere, and there's no habeas corpus for them."

The Detainee Treatment Act, signed by Bush almost a year ago, stripped enemy combatants of the right to file habeas petitions, but the newer law makes it retroactive. Durand said from Guantanamo that if the new law forces a federal court to throw out pending habeas cases, base commanders would then have the authority to stop or curtail lawyers' visits.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales maintained last month that habeas corpus was never intended to apply to "alien enemy combatants" and is meant for people in police custody. But the manner in which a detainee is determined to be an enemy combatant riles defense attorneys, who have been working without pay for Guantanamo detainees.

A Combatant Status Review Tribunal, headed by three U.S. military officers, determines whether a detainee is an enemy combatant. The detainee cannot have an attorney for the hearing, and part of the evidence may be classified.

The government uses the term "combatant" loosely. Those accused of belonging to aid groups allegedly linked to terrorist organizations have been branded enemy combatants, even though they were never accused of carrying a gun or bomb.

David Cynamon, whose law firm represents four detainees from Kuwait, said the military hearings are no substitute for a habeas court hearing. "They were averaging three a day. These things were a joke.

A federal court of appeals in Washington can review the finding of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, but is limited largely to considering whether it is consistent with "standards and procedures" established by the new law.

The government is proposing that defense lawyers can have no more than four meetings with detainees pursuing cases with the Washington appeals court. The government said in court filings it also wants to tighten censorship of mail from attorneys and allow the military to restrict what lawyers discuss with detainees, arguing that they could become violent if they hear about world events.

Defense lawyers see the proposals as an attempted blackout on news from Guantanamo.

"It reflects a cynical attempt by the government to staunch the flow of information out of Guantanamo, a cynical effort by the government to conceal facts about who really is being detained at Guantanamo," said attorney Wells Dixon of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents several hundred Guantanamo detainees.

The Bush administration says Majid Khan, who graduated from high school in Maryland and was allegedly involved in a plot to blow up gas stations, should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney at all.

Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003 and held by the CIA before being recently transferred to Guantanamo. The government said in an Oct. 26 court filing that if those held in secret CIA prisons speak to a civilian lawyer, information about interrogation tactics could come out, allowing terrorists to adapt their training.

"It's outrageous. A man held for 3 1/2 years and likely subjected to torture, for the government to now deny him access to counsel," said Dixon. "They want to prevent him from making his torture and abuse from becoming public."

Charges sought against Rumsfeld
Boston Globe
by Jeff St. Onge, Bloomberg News
November 11, 2006

Groups allege he had role in torture

WASHINGTON -- Twelve former detainees in the US war on terror will ask German prosecutors next week to indict Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials on charges related to torture and other war crimes, a lawyer for the group said yesterday.

Eleven Iraqis who were held at the Abu Ghraib prison and other US-run facilities in Iraq and a Saudi former detainee at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will file a criminal complaint Nov. 14, said Michael Rattner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"I don't think there's any doubt anymore that Rumsfeld and these guys authorized torture," Rattner said in a telephone interview.

He said the criminal complaint will ask the German federal prosecutor to begin an investigation into what role Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, and other high-ranking US officials may have had and to charge them as war criminals.

Air Force Major Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment. "We have not seen the lawsuit itself [and] have nothing to provide," he said.

Photos of US soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees sparked worldwide outrage when they were made public in April 2004. Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration said in congressional hearings in 2004 that prisoner abuses were confined largely to a group of soldiers on the night shift for a few months at Abu Ghraib prison.

The suit will allege that the administration officials ordered, assisted, or failed to prevent war crimes. German law provides "universal jurisdiction," allowing for the prosecution of war crimes committed anywhere, said Rattner, who is in Berlin preparing the case.

George J. Tenet, former Central Intelligence Agency director; Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence; David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff; Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of US forces in Iraq; and Colonel Thomas Pappas, the former top intelligence official in Iraq, will also be named in the suit, Rattner said.

Now that Rumsfeld has resigned, he no longer has the type of immunity typically given to heads of state and high-ranking government officials, Rattner said.

[back to contents]

Reports

UN Reports

UN officials voice ‘shock and dismay’ at deadly Israeli shelling of Gaza civilians
UN News Service
November 8, 2006

United Nations officials voiced shock and dismay at Israel’s shelling of a residential area in the occupied Gaza Strip in which 18 Palestinian civilians were killed, including eight children and seven women, with Secretary-General Kofi Annan calling on the Israeli Government to cease its military operations there forthwith.

In a statement issued by his spokesman, Mr. Annan took note of the reported announcement by Israel of a full investigation and said he looked forward to its early results. He also called on the Palestinians to halt attacks against Israeli targets.

Mr. Annan told reporters later that in telephone calls over the weekend he had urged Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to exercise maximum restraint and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to stop the rocket attacks. He added that he hoped measures would be taken to avoid a re-occurrence of today’s shelling.

The Security Council President for November, Ambassador Jorge Voto-Bernales of Peru, summoned the 15-member body for urgent consultations on the situation, including today’s shelling of the residential area in Beit Hanoun.

“Only last Friday, the Secretary-General expressed his deep concern about the rising death toll caused by the Israeli military operation in northern Gaza, given that such operations inevitably cause civilian casualties,” Mr. Annan’s spokesman said. “The Secretary-General reminds both sides of their obligations under international humanitarian law regarding the protection of civilians in armed conflict.”

UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Alvaro de Soto said he was “deeply shocked and appalled” by the shelling.

“The UN Special Coordinator cannot but express his condemnation and call upon the Israeli Government to call off these and other military operations with delay,” he said in a statement, also calling on the Palestinian side to cease attacks against Israeli targets.

“This morning’s tragedy is yet more evidence, if any were needed, of the necessity to end this futile and provocative cycle of violence,” the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which cares for Palestinian refugees, Karen AbuZayd, said in a statement.

Noting that only yesterday she visited Beit Hanoun shortly after Israeli forces left the area following a six-day occupation and saw “first hand the despair of people trying to come to terms with death and destruction on a scale not seen in Gaza for many years,” she too voiced “shock and dismay at the killing of yet more Palestine refugees.”

In a related development an independent UN human rights expert today called on the Security Council to take “urgent action” on what he called Israel’s “brutal collective punishment of a people” in Gaza.

“The Quartet, comprising the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and the Russian Federation, has done little to halt Israel’s attacks,” John Dugard, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, said in a statement today.

“Worse still, the Security Council has failed to adopt any resolution on the subject or attempt to restore peace to the region. The time has come for urgent action on the part of the Security Council. Failure to act at this time will seriously damage the reputation of the Security Council,” he added.

Special Rapporteurs are unpaid independent advisory experts with a mandate from the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council. The Quartet has promoted the so-called Road Map peace plan which calls for Israelis and Palestinians to live side-by-side in two States, originally by the end of last year.

“On 25 June 2006 Israel embarked on a military operation in Gaza that has resulted in over 300 deaths, including many civilians; over 1,000 injuries; large-scale devastation of public facilities and private homes; the destruction of agricultural lands; the disruption of hospitals, clinics and schools; the denial of access to adequate electricity, water and food; and the occupation and imprisonment of the people of Gaza,” Mr. Dugard said.

“This brutal collective punishment of a people, not a government, has passed largely unnoticed by the international community,” he added

Sri Lanka: UN official calls on all sides to protect civilians after deadly army shelling
UN News Service
November 9, 2006

The top United Nations relief official today called on all sides in the conflict between the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil separatist rebels to protect civilians after an army artillery bombardment yesterday hit a school sheltering 1,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs), killing at least 23 people and wounding 135 others.

“Yesterday’s massive attack on civilians shows that force continues to be used indiscriminately in the conflict in Sri Lanka,” UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland said in a statement.

“I call upon all parties to the conflict to ensure the protection of civilians under all circumstances in accordance with International Humanitarian Law,” he added.

The scene of the bombardment is a narrow peninsula in eastern Sri Lanka controlled by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), hosting 30,000 IDPs who left their homes in Trincomalee province due to the fighting in August.

“The people trapped in this camp are terrified and feel that they are completely at the mercy of others,” said the Special Advisor on Sri Lanka to the UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Allan Rock.

“The time has come for all parties to respect the basic human rights of these people, which are simply not being observed at the moment,” he added. After his visit to the camp today, Mr. Rock described it as a “shocking sight.”

NGO Reports

Uruguay is the First Latin American Country to Fully Implement ICC Treaty into Domestic Law
Coalition for the ICC
October 31, 2006

Global Coalition Urges Others in Latin America to Follow Uruguay’s Lead

(New York, 31 October 2006)– Uruguay has become the first country in Latin America to fully implement the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) treaty, the Rome Statute, into domestic law. In a letter sent to Uruguayan President Tabaré Vazquez recently, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) – a network of more than 2,000 civil society organizations around the world that work to promote a fair, effective and independent ICC – offered congratulations to Uruguay for taking this historic step forward.

Although Latin America and the Caribbean are one of the strongest regional supporters of the Court, with a total of 14 States now party to the Rome Statute, just over four years after ratifying the Rome Statute Uruguay is the only country to have enacted legislation implementing both complementarity and cooperation with the International Criminal Court. Colombia, Costa Rica and Peru have also enacted legislation implementing the Rome Statute, but covering only partial aspects of their duties under the Statute. In addition, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Mexico and Panama are still discussing legislation implementing the Rome Statute or criminal legislation covering some duties under the Rome Statute, at different stages.

Diego Camaño, from the CICC member organization, IELSUR (Social and Legal Studies Institute from Uruguay), said, “Uruguay should feel truly proud in becoming the first state in Latin America to now have laws that fully respect the ICC treaty. Through the 20 th century, we Latin Americans have witnessed some of the world’s worst crimes, but Uruguay’s steps forward point to a real change to respect for international law and justice in the 21 st century.”

Uruguay’s implementation process dates back to 2004, when the Vazquez government hired an independent consultant to draft a new implementation bill. This bill was presented to civil society for comment in May 2005 and then went to the Senate in November 2005. The Lower Chamber (Camara de Representantes) of the National Assembly approved the final implementation bill on 13 September 2006 and on 2 October 2006, the new legislation came into force.

The Coalition for the International Criminal Court welcomes the steps that Peru, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil have each taken in their ICC implementation but also urges the other eight remaining Latin American countries to complete their implementation processes as soon as possible so that Latin America might become the first region to be fully united in their support of international justice that the ICC represents. Latin America’s support of the ICC dates back to the early 1990s, years before the Court came into existence, and has remained strong despite a rigorous U.S. government anti-ICC campaign. This campaign has cut U.S. aid to a number of countries, including eight Latin American countries that refused to sign a Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA) with the U.S. These BIAs, which many legal scholars have determined contrary to international law, are meant to provide immunity from the ICC for all American citizens and all U.S. Army personnel (including foreign sub-contractors working for the U.S.).

In the past few weeks, however, the U.S. has made some significant moves in toning down its BIA campaign, largely due to pressure coming from Latin American allies. Most significantly, on 2 October, U.S. President Bush issued waivers to 21 countries (including Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, México, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay) that restored the International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding previously cut because of their stand on the BIA issue. These resisting countries have remained firm in their commitment to protect the integrity of the ICC treaty as they have continued to tell the world’s most powerful nation “no”. While this unprecedented step is already a serious improvement, there are still different forms of U.S. aid that remain vulnerable. The waivers restored $3.5 million in IMET funding, but $100 million dollars in other types of aid remain threatened including Economic Support Funds which cover a wide range of projects such as wheelchair distribution, conflict resolution work, and anti-drug trafficking initiatives. Among the countries that remain in danger of having their ESF aid cut are Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The CICC’s Latin America Regional Coordinator Paulina Vega said, “The CICC applauds the united resistance Latin America has maintained against the United States’ unjust BIA campaign and we ask these brave countries to remain strong and continue to refuse to sign a BIA. Further, we ask countries to advocate in Washington D.C. that they need broader waivers which repeal all of the aid cuts that are being implemented simply because a given country has chosen to join the ICC and fully honor its treaty.”

In addition to implementing new legislation, Uruguay's Parliament recently approved the Court's Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court (APIC) which is designed to provide officials and staff of the ICC with certain privileges and immunities necessary for them to perform their duties in an independent and unconditional manner. The sole remaining step for Uruguay is to deposit the instrument of ratification at the United Nations.

Commenting on this additional ratification, Paulina Vega said, “We urge Uruguay to deposit the APIC ratification as soon as possible so that they will have fully completed their legislative commitment to the ICC. We also urge all Latin American countries, whether they are party to the Court now or not, to ratify APIC as soon as possible to ensure that the entire continent continues to be a leading region in the support for the ICC."

###

Notes for Editors:

1. The International Criminal Court is the world’s first permanent global criminal court. It is not an organ of the United Nations but rather an independent body established in The Hague, the Netherlands on 1 July 2002 when the ICC treaty came into force. The ICC does not have jurisdiction over crimes prior to that date.

2. The Court is currently investigating cases in Darfur, Sudan; the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); and Uganda. The ICC Prosecutor’s office is also analyzing 8 situations on 4 continents including the Central African Republic and Cote d’Ivoire.

3. The Court unsealed its first arrest warrants for five top leaders of the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) on 13 October 2005. The LRA is believed to have orchestrated tens of thousands of killings, abductions, and gender-based crimes in Uganda during the course of the Ugandan civil war which began in 1986.

4. On 17 March 2006, the ICC unsealed its arrest warrant for Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, leader of the political and military movement, the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), and also announced that Mr. Lubanga had been arrested and transferred from DRC to The Hague. Mr. Lubanga is alleged to have been involved in forcefully enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities in the DRC.

5. The CICC is not an organ of the Court but rather an independent NGO network of more than 2,000 civil society organizations working to promote a fair, effective and independent ICC. The CICC was established in February 1995 and has offices in New York City and The Hague as well as seven regional offices around the world. For more information: www.iccnow.org

International Criminal Court: Concerns at the fifth session of the Assembly of States Parties
Amnesty International
November 2,2006

INTRODUCTION

The fifth session of the Assembly of States Parties (Assembly) will take place in The Hague from 23 November to 1 December 2006. Eight years after the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), over half of all states have ratified it and the fifth session of the Assembly takes place in the context of a functioning International Criminal Court (Court), which is about to start its first trial.

At this stage in the Court’s history, the support of the Assembly is vital. Amnesty International, therefore, welcomes the Assembly’s decision at its fourth session to extend its session to eight days to ensure that it has more time to perform its oversight functions. It is important that the extra time is used effectively to give proper attention to the many issues on the Assembly’s provisional agenda. Furthermore, it is important that the lack of interpretation at previous sessions to cover all meetings must not be repeated at the fifth session to ensure that there is effective discussion including all delegations.

Amnesty International also welcomes the Assembly’s decisions at its fourth session to request the Bureau of the Assembly to undertake work on a number of key issues which it will report on to the Assembly at this session. Bureau members in consultation with other states parties, observers and non-governmental organizations in The Hague and New York have examined a number of issues, including the role of the Assembly in promoting ratifications and implementation of the Rome Statute; the Strategic Plan of the Court; the status of arrears and the interim and permanent premises. Amnesty International, however, continues to have concerns about the lack of transparency of some of the mechanisms established to discuss these issues. In particular, many meetings are not open to non-governmental organizations. Non-governmental organizations played a crucial role in drafting the Rome Statute and its supplementary instruments, lobbying for ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute and, where necessary, implementation of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court (APIC) and supporting the effective operation of the Court. As the UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan noted, the "tireless efforts" of non-governmental organizations contributed to the successful adoption of the Rome Statute and its entry into force.(1) Therefore, our organization hopes that sufficient time will be allocated during the Assembly to review the work of the Bureau allowing for open discussion,

Full report continues here.

Sri Lanka: Amnesty International calls for inquiry into attack on displaced civilians
Amnesty International
November 8, 2006

Amnesty International is deeply concerned by reports of the killing today of as many as 65 civilians taking refuge in a school in Kathiraveli, a coastal hamlet 15 km north of Vaharai in the eastern district of Batticaloa.

The Sri Lankan Army (SLA) reportedly fired multi-barrel rockets and artillery shells which hit a school where internally displaced people (IDPs) were taking shelter. As many as 40 bodies are reported to have been recovered from the scene and more than 100 have been wounded. It is likely that many more may have been injured as the area targeted was densely populated and inhabited by some 5000 IDPs.

Amnesty International is appalled that the military should attack a camp for displaced people -- these were civilians who had already been forced from their homes because of the conflict. Amnesty International condemns all attacks on civilians and is particularly saddened and shocked to see such a large-scale attack on civilians just days after the government's announcement of its Commission of Inquiry into human rights abuses.

A Sri Lankan military spokesman has confirmed heavy artillery and mortar bomb exchanges in Batticaloa district, but has accused the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of using civilians as human shields. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that 60,646 people remained displaced in Batticaloa district alone, as of 23 October 2006, and over 200,000 have been displaced in the north and east of Sri Lanka since 7 April 2006.

Amnesty International condemns the targeting and killing of innocent civilians and calls on the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE to take immediate and adequate precautions to protect civilian lives. All parties to the hostilities must comply with international humanitarian law, which prohibits murder or other violence to those taking no active part in hostilities, requires parties to ensure that their forces comply with the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets and do not target civilians or carry out indiscriminate attacks.

Amnesty International calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to initiate an immediate inquiry by international and independent human rights experts into this incident and all serious violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law. Amnesty International reiterates the urgent need for the Government of Sri Lanka to establish a strong and effective international human rights monitoring operation as a matter of urgency to respond to the dramatic deterioration of the human rights and humanitarian situation. Such a mechanism must have the full cooperation of both the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE and the support of the United Nations and its member states.

Gaza: ICRC deplores civilian deaths and casualties
International Committee of the Red Cross
November 8, 2006

Geneva / Tel Aviv (ICRC) – The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) deplores the large number of civilian deaths and casualties caused by an attack on Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip today and calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law.

"The ICRC is appalled that at least 18 persons, including seven children and seven women, lost their lives and at least 58 others were wounded, some of them very severely, as a result of Israeli military operations in Beit Hanoun in the early hours of 8 November," said Dominik Stillhart, the ICRC head of delegation in Israel and the occupied territories. Repeated shelling by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) caught some of the victims unawares in their sleep. Two civilian buildings suffered direct hits.

The ICRC calls on the Israeli authorities to spare and protect civilians, and to take all feasible precautions when conducting military operations, in particular in densely inhabited areas. "Civilians must not pay the price of conflict; any civilian loss of life further fuels the conflict and generates more loss, suffering and grief," Mr Stillhart said. In the last week alone, more than 75 persons have died as a result of IDF operations in Gaza.

International humanitarian law strictly prohibits attacks against civilians and civilian objects and requires that a strict distinction be made between the civilian population and military objectives.

Sri Lanka: ICRC deplores attack on civilians
International Committee of the Red Cross
November 9, 2006

Colombo/Geneva (ICRC) – The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) deplores the tragic loss of life and the injury to civilians resulting from the shelling yesterday of the densely populated area of Kathiraveli, a coastal hamlet north of Vakarai, where several thousand internally displaced people had sought shelter.

An ICRC convoy of six ambulances, a bus, a truck and three cars reached Vakarai hospital, to which the dead and the wounded had been brought, and transferred 69 serious cases to Valiaichchenai hospital, a better equipped facility in the government-controlled area. A second ICRC convoy returned to the area today to deliver aid to civilians there.

With fighting continuing between the Sri Lankan security forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the eastern district of Batticaloa, the ICRC reminds the parties to the conflict of their obligation to comply with international humanitarian law. In particular, it urgently calls on the parties to ensure that the civilian population is respected and protected in all circumstances, in accordance with the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets and thus avoiding indiscriminate attacks. They must also take all feasible precautions to protect civilians under their control against the effects of attacks by the other side. Finally, the ICRC urges the parties to respect the freedom of movement of internally displaced people.

The ICRC has been active in Sri Lanka since 1989, in particular in the north-east of the country, acting as a neutral intermediary, protecting and assisting the civilian population, visiting detainees, restoring contact between members of separated families and promoting international humanitarian law.

[back to contents]