War Crimes Prosecution Watch

Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers (ECCC)

Official Website of the Extraordinary Chambers
Official Website of the Khmer Rouge Trial Task Force
Official Website of the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials (UNAKRT)

Witness Protection at Khmer Trial Put Into Question
Taipei Times
November 14, 2006

Not enough had been done to ensure the protection of witnesses called before Cambodia's Khmer Rouge tribunal, lawyers warned yesterday, adding the trials of former regime leaders could be jeopardized.

"We are concerned," said Rupert Skilbeck of the tribunal's Defense Office, which was established to ensure the rights of defendants.

"Compared to other tribunals, it's miniscule ... you have to get this right," he said, calling witnesses protection "insufficient."

"If witnesses are killed or intimidated, you won't have a fair trial," he said, speaking at a meeting on the challenges faced by the defense.

Potentially hundreds of people could be called to court as Cambodia tries former regime leaders, accused of one of the 20th century's worst genocides.

Up to two million people died of starvation, overwork, or were executed during the 1975 to 79 rule of the Khmer Rouge, which turned Cambodia into a vast collective farm between 1975 and 1979 in its drive for an agrarian utopia, forcing millions into the countryside.

A three-year, UN-Cambodian tribunal got underway in July, with co-prosecutors expected to hand up the names of potential defendants to an investigating judge by the end of the year.

Trials are expected to start in the middle of next year.

A top genocide researcher has that likely witnesses had gone into hiding amid protection fears.

Under the current arrangement, witnesses will come under the protection of Cambodian police, who critics say have a history of corruption and brutality.

"The setup of witness protection as currently envisaged will be wholly inadequate," the report said.

"Relying on a police force that has a reputation for corruption and incompetence would place the lives of the witnesses at risk," he said.

Officials Mull Khmer Rouge Trial
BBC News
November 20, 2006

Cambodian and international judges are meeting to discuss the rules to be applied during the trials of the former leaders of the Khmer Rouge.

The session, planned to last a week, has been preceded by discussions over the role of foreign lawyers and public participation in the process.

The issue of whether the defendants can get a fair trial has also been debated.

About two million people died during the years that the Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia in the 1970s under Pol Pot.

Which of the former Khmer Rouge leaders will be prosecuted first may be announced before the end of the year.

The UN-backed trials are due to start in 2007, and could mean that surviving leaders of the brutal Maoist regime - some of whom are still living freely - will be called to the dock.

Defendants vilified

The Khmer Rouge trials process started four months ago, but Cambodian and international legal officials still have to agree on many of the procedures for the trials.

Differences in legal systems have to be addressed - not just between local and international laws, but among the various legal codes used by the international officials.

Already the draft rules have been criticised. Human rights groups have warned that the trials could be swamped by a flood of lawsuits from members of the public.

The Cambodian Bar Association has said it will try to block foreign lawyers from representing defendants.

And the principal defender has raised doubts over whether a fair trial is possible for men who have been vilified publicly for more than two decades.

The international co-prosecutor, Robert Petit, says compromise is the only solution.

"We have to adapt the law to our mandate. We have a three year budget, we have some very specific crimes that are by nature extremely complex and difficult to deal with, and we have to adapt those rules and that law so that we can fulfil that mandate," Mr Petit said.

The Pol Pot regime saw up to two million people executed or starved or overworked to death between 1975 and 1979.

Pol Pot, the founder and leader of the Khmer Rouge, died in a camp along the border with Thailand in 1998.

Other key figures have also died. Ta Mok - the regime's military commander and one of Pol Pot's most ruthless henchmen - died on 21 July 2006.

The BBC's Guy De Launey in Phnom Penh says this week's meeting could go a long way to making sure the Khmer Rouge Trials are meaningful to the survivors.

Cambodia: Extraordinary Chambers must not rush to adopt flawed Rules
Amnesty International
November 22, 2006

Amnesty International today called on the judges of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (Court), who are meeting to consider draft Internal Rules (Rules) governing the work of the Court, to extend their consideration of the Rules and to extend the time allocated for public comments and expert consultations.

Amnesty International has reviewed the Rules, which were released for public comment on 3 November 2006. Although the organization welcomes the transparent process conducted by the Court, it has identified a number of serious problems which must be resolved to ensure that the Court meets the highest standards of international justice in investigating and prosecuting crimes under Cambodian and international law committed in Cambodia between 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979.

Amnesty International is concerned that the problems it has identified in its initial review are complex and cannot be effectively resolved by 25 November, when the judges conclude their plenary and are expected to adopt the Rules. Amnesty International is, therefore, calling on the judges not to rush to adopt the Rules in the time frame but instead to advance their work as much as possible at this plenary, taking into account the initial input it has received. The Court should then either extend the transparent consultation process and schedule a further plenary or provisionally adopt the Rules at this meeting and schedule a detailed review process in the near future.

Summary of Amnesty International’s concerns on the Rules
Amnesty International has identified a number of problems in the Rules which should be addressed, including:

There are inadequate provisions for the protection and support of victims and witnesses. Amnesty International is particularly concerned that the establishment of a Victims Unit is only included for discussion and “subject to the availability of additional funding.” Furthermore, the functions and responsibilities of the proposed Victims Unit differ significantly from victims and witnesses units of other international and internationalized courts, raising concern that, even if the Unit is established, it will not be effective. Victim and witness units of other international courts are solely responsible for providing protection and support, assisted by other authorities. The Court’s Rules however fail to establish the Victims Unit as the central body to perform these functions and do not include details of protection or support services that will be provided.
Although the Rules provide for reparations for victims, the scope and forms of reparations are vaguely defined and, in some instances, inconsistent with international law. For example, a provision that victims can only apply for reparations for injuries which “have come into being and continue to subsist at the time of the proceedings” is contrary to the principle that all victims of crimes under international law have a right to full and effective reparation.
The Rules do not incorporate important provisions adopted by other international and internationalized courts governing the prosecution of crimes of sexual violence. In particular, rules relating to the treatment of survivors of sexual violence and establishing principles on the consideration of evidence in cases of sexual violence are omitted.
The Rules provide that the judges will need to decide whether the Cambodian Bar Association or the Defence Unit of the Court will maintain a list of defence lawyers. The organization believes that this task must be allocated to the Defence Unit to ensure that the accreditation of defence lawyers is conducted independently. Amnesty International is particularly concerned by recent reports that the Bar Association has indicated that if it is given this task, it would bar foreign lawyers from defending accused persons.
Rules prohibiting trials in absentia have not yet been fully incorporated into the Rules. The right of an accused person to be present at their trial is an integral part of the right to defend oneself, where they can hear and challenge the prosecution case and present a defence.

Cambodian Bar Association seeks control over defense lawyers in Khmer Rouge Tribunal
Associated Press via International Herald Tribune
November 23, 2006

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia: The planned genocide trial of Cambodia's former Khmer Rouge leaders faced a possible new hurdle Thursday, when the country's lawyers demanded it be responsible for certifying defense counsels taking part in the tribunal.

Ky Tech, president of Cambodian Bar Association, also insisted that a proposed defense unit within the hybrid Cambodia-United Nations genocide tribunal halt its plan to set up an office and recruit and train staff.

He said the unit encroaches on the sovereignty of his group, which under Cambodian law is the only body mandated to regulate legal professionals in Cambodia.

The unit "is intentionally and stubbornly violating Cambodian laws and the authority of the Bar Association. But I will not idly sit by," Ky Tech told The Associated Press.

He also threatened to take unspecified legal action against the proposed defense unit if it pushes ahead with its bid to become operational within the tribunal, officially known as Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.

"Those who seek to set up the defense unit are trying to create a state within a state, which is unacceptable," Ky Tech said. "We do not object to foreign lawyers coming to practice law in Cambodia, but they must abide by the law of the Cambodian Bar Association."

The tribunal was created by a 2003 agreement between Cambodia and the United Nations after years of difficult negotiations to try to seek justice for crimes committed when the Khmer Rouge held power in 1975-79. The radical policies of the now-defunct communist group led to the deaths of some 1.7 million people from execution, overwork, disease and malnutrition.

Prosecutors are currently working on building cases for trials that could start sometime next year. They are expected to indict about 10 defendants, including the few surviving top Khmer Rouge leaders.

The defense unit would provide legal support for future defendants.

Rupert Skilbeck, the principal defender heading the unit, was busy in a meeting and unable to comment Thursday.

Skilbeck said last week that a vigorous defense is crucial for establishing the tribunal's fairness and credibility.

The matter of a defense office is among some 110 internal rules of conduct for the upcoming trials being discussed at a meeting of tribunal judges and prosecutors. The meeting, which started Monday, will end Saturday.

International Bar Association Cancels Legal Training for Cambodian Genocide Trial
Associated Press via International Herald Tribune
November 24, 2006

The International Bar Association has canceled a training program for Cambodian attorneys preparing for the Khmer Rouge genocide trial, saying Friday it could not work around the obstacles created by a Cambodian lawyers' group.

The London-based IBA had planned to train Cambodian attorneys to represent defendants in the long-awaited genocide trial of surviving Khmer Rouge leaders that is being jointly organized by Cambodia and the United Nations. The tribunal could begin next year.

The plan had angered the Cambodian Bar Association, which accused the international group of encroaching on its sovereignty, saying that under Cambodia law the local bar was the only body mandated to regulate legal professionals in the country.

Ky Tech, president of Cambodian Bar Association, called the planned training illegal on Thursday and prohibited Cambodian lawyers from taking part in the IBA's training program, scheduled to start Monday.

The IBA's executive director, Mark Ellis, responded in a statement Friday, saying that the training was intended to improve the quality of legal services and the administration of justice in Cambodia but the group was unable to operate with the hurdles posed by the Cambodian Bar Association.

Ellis questioned the group's motives and called their actions a "disturbing development" that places "obstacles in the path of bringing those accused of international crimes to trial."

"The prohibition by the Cambodian Bar is part of a wider scheme of opposition designed to obstruct the operation of the tribunal," the IBA said. "In consequence, the IBA has canceled the program."

Ky Tech dismissed the accusation that his group was standing in the way of justice.

"We are happy to see Cambodian lawyers learn from experienced foreign lawyers," he said. "But we are also unhappy with any acts encroaching on our rights."

He said the IBA's decision to cancel its training was "appropriate."

The tribunal was created by a 2003 agreement between Cambodia and the United Nations after years of difficult negotiations to try to seek justice for crimes committed when the Khmer Rouge held power from 1975-79. The radical policies of the now-defunct communist group led to the deaths of some 1.7 million people from execution, overwork, disease and malnutrition.

The Cambodian Defenders Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal aid services, regretted the cancellation.

"It was a good chance for any lawyers who want to gain experience from international lawyers," said the group's director, Sok Sam Oeun. "And the Cambodian bar gains nothing."

Khmer Rouge Trial Rules Still Not Set
Associated Press via Forbes News
November 25, 2006

Organizers of the Khmer Rouge genocide trials said Saturday they have been unable to agree on the judicial rules that will govern proceedings, but they still expect to convene the long-awaited tribunal in mid-2007.

The Cambodian and international judicial officials who will conduct the tribunal met last week to discuss 110 draft rules but encountered "substantive disagreement about several key issues," the officials said in a joint statement.

Hopes to adopt the rules within a week were "far too ambitious," the statement said. It gave no indication of when meetings would reconvene.

The tribunal was created by a 2003 agreement between Cambodia and the United Nations to seek justice for crimes committed when the Khmer Rouge held power from 1975-79. The radical policies of the now-defunct communist group led to the deaths of some 1.7 million people from execution, overwork, disease and malnutrition.

Prosecutors are expected to indict about 10 defendants, including the few surviving top Khmer Rouge leaders.

The disagreements centered on how to integrate Cambodian law with international standards and how the special tribunal will operate within the Cambodian court structure, under which the tribunal was established, the statement said.

The 110 draft rules under consideration cover every phase of the proceedings - preliminary investigations, judicial investigations, the trial and appeals. They also delineate the roles of all parties, including prosecutors, defense attorneys and defendants, the statement said.

Critics have often described the Cambodian judiciary as weak, corrupt and susceptible to political influence.

"All of us have a strong determination to succeed in our goal of establishing a firm foundation for the court," the statement said. "No one wishes to delay these long-awaited trials."

Reach Sambath, a tribunal spokesman, said the failure to adopt the rules will not affect plans to convene the first hearing sometime "before June next year."

[back to contents]

Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICC)

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

ICC Deputy Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda - We Will Investigate Other People And Other Crimes in DR Congo
AllAfrica.com - United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo
INTERVIEW
by Biliaminou Alao & Oscar Mercado
November 15, 2006

ICC Deputy Prosecutor, Ms. Fatou Bensouda, emphasizes in an interview with MONUC the importance of the trial against Thomas Lubanga for enlisting and conscripting children, and expresses confidence that the Pre-Trial will be brought to the next level.

Why has the Prosecutor charged Thomas Lubanga only with war crimes, namely enlisting and conscripting children under the age of fifteen years and using them to participate actively in hostilities?

I want to start by talking about how important this crime is. This crime of enlisting and conscripting children in my opinion is very important and for a long time it has not received the recognition that it deserves.

This is the first time that the ICC is bringing charges based solely on this particular type of crime. And we hope that by doing so we will build international consensus to emphasize that it should no go unpunished. Not anymore. This is the primary focus.

In addition to that, at the time that we sought the arrest of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo from the DRC, the office of the prosecutor had sufficient evidence only to prove this particular charge. However, this does not mean that even after this initial case, we will not bring other charges for other crimes against Lubanga.

If none of the charges brought against Lubanga were retained by the Court, will the Prosecutor bring up other charges?

We continue to investigate in the DRC, not only against Lubanga, but also against other people. I don't want to speculate about the prosecutor not having these charges confirmed before the pre-trial's end because we are very confident of the evidence that we have and which we are now in the process of presenting to the Pre-Trial Chamber.

If charges brought up against Lubanga were retained, how long will the trial last and what sentence is he likely to face?

If the charges are confirmed, the Pre-Trial Chamber has up to 60 days to confirm the charges after the close of the hearing. Once the charges are confirmed, the presidency will constitute a Trial Chamber for the trial to start. We hope that this will be sometime in early 2007. But I don't know yet because it is not for the office of the prosecutor to give the time that the trial will start.

How long the trial will take will of course depend on so many other issues. The prosecutor has his evidence, the defense I'm sure also will have their own evidence and depending on all the participants, even the victims, for instance, depending on all of those procedures, that is what will determine the time. It is merely, as I said, for the judges to decide.

The sentence is also not for the office of the prosecutor, it's for the judges to determine; but according to the statute I can just tell that it can be any number of years to life imprisonment. But as I said, it is for the judges to decide.

Are there other Congolese people likely to be tried by the International Criminal Court?

The policy adopted by the office of the prosecutor with regard to our investigation in the DRC is that we are proceeding in sequence. We have started with the case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, but it is not the last. We are carrying on with our investigations and we will investigate other people, and other crimes during the course of our investigation in the situation in DRC.

Witness flustered at DRC warlord ICC hearing
Agence France Presse via Yahoo! News
November 20, 2006

The first prosecution witness called to a pre-trial hearing of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga in The Hague appeared flustered as she was cross examined by the suspect's defence lawyer.

The "charges confirmation hearing" will continue until November 28, after which judges have until January to decide if there is enough evidence for a trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Lubanga, 45, is charged with abducting children under the age of 15 and forcing them to participate in attacks by the armed wing of his political Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) during wars that ravaged the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

The witness, Christine Peduto, a French woman in charge of child protection for the United Nations in the DRC in 2003 and 2004, took a defensive tone during the cross examination.

"I am not a military or political expert," she said in answer to questions on the political situation in the strife-torn northeast Ituri region. "I am concerned with armed groups since the massacres of 2002, but the situation in Bunia (Ituri's main town) was extremely volatile at that time," she added.

On several occasions, the witness spoke with the UN observer, Catherine Marchi-Uhel, who sat beside her in the witnesses' area.

"In your statement, you talk about tiny children whose Kalashnikovs were taller than they were ...what is the height of a Kalashnikov?.. Shall we say 70 centimetres (two feet and three inches)?" defence lawyer Jean Flamme asked.

"It is possible," she replied. "And would you say that a child was under 70 centimetres tall?" the Belgian lawyer continued.

"These are the descriptions given by our sources of information ...They used images that were surely exaggerated to shed light on the situation," she responded.

"For people whose job is to write the reports that go before the (UN) Security Council, is it not taking the task lightly to use such images?" he asked.

"I did not use these images in my reports," Peduto said. "These were images used by Congolese contributors ... they were trying to mobilise the international community when confronted with a situation they found serious," she added.

Lubanga has denied the charges against him.

UN Says It Will Support Congolese Troops Enforcing Kinshasa Ultimatum If Needed
AllAfrica.com - UN News Service
November 24, 2006

United Nations peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) will support the Congolese army if needed in enforcing a 48-hour security ultimatum in the capital to remove forces loyal to the losing candidate in last month's presidential elections, the top UN envoy to the strife-torn country has said.

The Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the DRC, William Lacy Swing, said that some 50 supporters of Vice-President Jean-Pierre Bemba have already left the capital as a result of the ultimatum imposed by the Congolese army following Tuesday's violence in Kinshasa.

The ultimatum came a day after the Supreme Court building and police vehicles were burned during clashes between police and Mr. Bemba's supporters over a court filing challenging the provisional results of the elections, which forecasted Mr. Bemba's defeat by incumbent President Joseph Kabila.

"Mr. Swing said that the Congolese army, if necessary, will be backed by UN peacekeepers in enforcing the ultimatum, whose implementation is proceeding peacefully," a UN spokesman said today in New York.

The UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) strongly condemned this week's violence and again called on Wednesday for all sides involved to resolve any differences peacefully.

"A lot of blood has already been spilt in this country, and the Congolese have understood and accepted that the 'hatchet must be buried.' MONUC reminds those who refuse to understand this, that protests can only be held by peaceful and legal means, through the rule of law," MONUC spokesman Kemal Saiki said.

The elections for president, national and local assemblies, which began at the end of July and culminated with the presidential run-off on 29 October, were the first free polls in more than four decades. They were the largest and most complex elections that the UN has ever helped to organize and were aimed at cementing the vast and impoverished country's transition to stability after a brutal six-year civil war, which cost 4 million lives through fighting and attendant hunger and disease. Factional fighting has remained a problem since the end of the war, especially in the east.

In another development in the DRC, Mr. Saiki said today that a UN human rights team had found a mass grave in an army camp in eastern Ituri district holding around 30 bodies, including women and children, adding that the military prosecutor is investigating and two soldiers have been arrested.

In addition to its peacekeeping role, MONUC inaugurated a gardening project this week to help the capital's street children, who are often accused of sorcery and maltreated by society. The project will help pay for the children's schooling, food and other needs, the mission said, adding it is one of over 200 similar initiatives completed over the past few years aimed at improving the lives of the most depressed sectors of society.

[back to contents]

Darfur, Sudan (ICC)

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

ICC prosecutor close to launching Darfur prosecutions
Associated Press via Sudan Tribune
November 23, 2006

Nov 23, 2006 (THE HAGUE) — The International Criminal Court is close to launching prosecutions against suspects believed responsible for atrocities including murder, rape and torture in Darfur, the court’s chief prosecutor announced Thursday.

"Based on a careful and thorough source evaluation of all the evidence collected, we were able to identify the gravest incidents and some of those who could be considered to be the most criminally responsible," prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told a meeting of states that have ratified the Hague-based court.

Moreno-Ocampo did not name any suspects being targeted by prosecutors or identify atrocities they are alleged to have taken part in.

But he said investigators have proof of crimes against humanity and war crimes including murder, rape, torture, deliberate attacks on civilians, persecution and forcible expulsions.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and about 2.5 million people displaced in three years of fighting in Darfur between African rebels and government troops allied with Arab militia known as janjaweed.

U.N. investigators have blamed the janjaweed for the bulk of atrocities such as murders, rapes, arson and looting.

Moreno-Ocampo’s announcement came a day after U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said there has been a "dramatic deterioration" in Darfur, where 4 million Sudanese are in desperate need of help as newly rearmed Arab militias and rebels escalate attacks and resume looting and burning villages.

Richard Dicker, of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said he was very pleased with the announcement. He said the action came in "the context of ongoing horrific crimes being carried out both by the Sudanese armed forces and janjaweed militia against innocent civilians who remain at risk of the kinds of arbitrary killings, rape, torture and mutilations that have characterized the conflict in Darfur since 2003-2004."

Dicker also dismissed Sudan’s move to set up a court for Darfur, saying it did little beyond "pay lip service" to prosecuting atrocities in the region.

Investigators carried out 70 missions in 17 different countries tracing victims, taking statements from more than 100 victims and witnesses and collecting documents, Moreno-Ocampo said.

However, they have been unable to carry out investigations in Darfur itself because of the ongoing violence.

Moreno-Ocampo said Sudanese authorities had provided investigators with a government-ordered report that found that "from 2003 to 2004 grave human rights breaches were committed by all parties to the conflict and that in Darfur murder and crimes against humanity had been committed by all parties to the conflict."

The Sudanese report also "established that many allegations concerning incidents of murder have been attributed to ... Janjaweed, either acting alone or together with elements of the Sudanese security forces," Moreno-Ocampo said.

In May this year, Sudanese government officials detailed in writing Khartoum’s perspective on military operations in Darfur, Moreno-Ocampo said, adding that his investigators also interviewed two high-ranking civilian and military officials in Khartoum in August.

Moreno-Ocampo must now assess whether Sudanese authorities are making credible attempts to prosecute the same suspects and atrocities he is targeting. He said he should have finished that process by early next month.

If Moreno-Ocampo finds the Sudanese decides they are not, he will present his case to judges at the court who can then decide whether to file charges. Once that has been done, suspects would have to be arrested and transferred to The Hague — so far the court has only one suspect, alleged Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga, in custody.

A hearing would then be scheduled to assess whether the evidence is strong enough to order suspects to stand trial.

Moreno-Ocampo also said his office continues to assess whether to launch a formal investigation in the Central African Republic, where there are reports of "hundreds of rapes, killing and looting."

He also is assessing whether to investigate atrocities in the Ivory Coast and is investigating possible war crimes in three other undisclosed countries.

(AP)

Annan hails progress made by International Criminal Court
UN News Service
November 24, 2006

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has established itself at the heart of “a truly international system of criminal justice” within just a few years of coming into existence, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said today.

In a message to participants gathered in The Hague for the fifth session of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC, Mr. Annan the Court “has come far in a short time” since the Statute was adopted at a major diplomatic conference in the Italian capital in 1998.

“Few could have expected that by 2006, a fully operational entity would have initiated its first trials, an Office of the Prosecutor would be prosecuting or investigating multiple situations, there would be a Security Council referral, and the Court would have issued its first warrants of arrest,” he said.

The Security Council last year referred the situation in Sudan’s conflict-torn Darfur region to the Court, which is also pursuing cases in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic.

“The Court has established itself as the centrepiece of a truly international system of criminal justice. And it has become both the embodiment of, and the driving force behind, a profound evolution of international norms and law,” said the Secretary-General.

This year Chad, the Comoros, Montenegro and Saint Kitts and Nevis have ratified the Rome Statute, taking the total number of ratifications now to 104 – a sign, Mr. Annan said, that “the Court is moving closer to its ultimate goal of universal jurisdiction.”

The statute became a binding treaty in April 2002 when the number of countries which had ratified it reached 60.

In his message Mr. Annan also hailed the increased cooperation between the United Nations and the ICC, citing the way in which their Relationship Agreement is being implemented through many supplementary arrangements.

“The fact that the first ever witness before the Chambers of the Court in pre-trial proceedings is a UN official again reflects our strong commitment to ending impunity and aiding the ICC’s work,” he added.

The Assembly of States Parties is the ICC’s management oversight and legislative body, comprised of representatives of nations which have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute. Its fifth session, which began yesterday, runs until next Friday. The crime of aggression and the court’s budget for next year are among the topics on the agenda.

Sudan Government's solution: Janjaweed unleashed in Darfur
Amnesty International
November 24, 2006

Brutal attacks on civilians by Janjawid nomad militia are taking place in many parts of Darfur. The attacks, though targeted at civilians, serve the Sudan government’s strategic ends.

A military offensive in August and September 2006 by government armed forces failed to crush the rebel groups not signed up to the Darfur Peace Agreement of May 2006. Now, during a new offensive in November, the government has unleashed the Janjawid, alone or accompanying the armed forces, to attack civilian populations near or around the bases of the non-signatory groups.

Two years after the first UN Security Council resolution on Darfur in July 2004, and in spite of the Darfur Peace Agreement, grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law continue unabated in Darfur. They include mass forced displacement, unlawful killings, and looting of civilian property. Attacks directed at civilians violate the most basic rule of international humanitarian law. They constitute war crimes and can be crimes against humanity.

The African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) forces have investigated some but not all of these attacks. Their reports have not yet been formally submitted or made public. The African Union has taken no action against the perpetrators.

Civilians targeted

While the government armed forces continue offensives against rebel group bases, the Janjawid are sent into villages to attack civilians. In mid-November armed forces attacks were concentrated on Bir Maza, a base of the "Group of 19", a Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) faction that refused to sign the Darfur Peace Agreement. Bir Maza is now deserted. Many civilians have reportedly died in the attacks and the bombings which have accompanied them. At least 3,000 people have fled and are hiding in the bush, mountains and caves, mostly without any access to humanitarian aid.

Several hundred Janjawid accompany such strikes, in trucks or on horses or camels. They attack civilian villages along the route, loot cattle and possessions, burn houses, and sometimes kill, rape or abduct those they catch. Many are incorporated within paramilitary units such as the Border Intelligence and are freshly armed with Sudanese-made weapons.

As in the mass forced displacements of 2003-4, the Janjawid invariably attack unarmed civilians believed to be supporters of armed groups. They do not usually engage the armed opposition groups, which have now seized large amounts of munitions from government forces. The inhabitants of the villages are almost without exception from ethnic groups identified as "African", their ethnicity linking them to the armed groups.

The method, targeting, and degree of violence employed in the attacks suggest that their main purpose is terror – to terrorize the people and forcibly displace them from the land. Above and beyond the brutal killing and injuring of civilians, there has been deliberate targeted killing of young boys in the Jebel Moon attacks in October (see below). The wanton burning of grain stores, harvest crops and homes, the looting of herds of cattle and sheep, appear to leave inhabitants no option but to flee without hope of return.

Such attacks are predominantly launched by the Janjawid. However, government soldiers and fighters from factions such as the SLA Minni Minawi faction which signed the Darfur Peace Agreement also sometimes participate. Victims describe army groups and individual officers among the attackers, and assaults are generally mounted from well known Janjawid or government bases not far from the target villages.

In some places, once aware of attacks on villages, armed opposition groups are reported to have engaged the Janjawid. Thus, although civilians are the main targets, some of the people killed may be members of armed opposition groups or civilians caught in the crossfire.

The presence of armed opposition group camps near to civilians in itself endangers the civilian population. However, international law is clear. Civilians must not be attacked. Even if there are family or tangential links between individual civilians and members of rebel groups, and even if the groups derive some material support, such as foodstuffs, from the local population, international humanitarian law protects all those who do not take a direct part in hostilities. Attacks on civilians are war crimes.

The deliberate attacks on villages are part of a government policy to evacuate communities that might support the armed opposition and to make it difficult for the armed groups to sustain themselves. Using the Janjawid to fulfil such objectives is less costly militarily and materially.

West Darfur

The recent Janjawid attacks are an escalation of a previous pattern of continuous strikes. The attack in the Jebel Moon area was one of the most horrific, but typical in many respects.

Jebel Moon is an area of mountains where both the SLA and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel groups have bases. It was the villages not the armed group bases that were the targets. Eight villages and the camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs) at Hijilija were attacked. The Janjawid, many with new uniforms and weapons, attacked the first village, Ghibeish, at dawn on 29 October 2006.

Most of the more than 50 civilians killed that day were in Ghibeish, taken by surprise as they slept. In all the villages, Janjawid on horseback were reported to have fired at people indiscriminately, while those on camels rounded up the livestock.

Of the inhabitants killed, about 26 were children, 21 of them under the age of 10. Young boys were targeted. According to testimonies collected by the UN, a group of three children tried to run away but were caught. One of them, a five-year-old boy, fell down and was shot dead. Another boy who begged to be spared was told: "If I let you go you will grow up. I will not let you go". He was then killed. One woman’s four-year-old son was torn from her arms and shot dead in front of her.

When they had killed or driven away the inhabitants of each village, the Janjawid plundered goods and burned harvest crops in the fields, destroying villages’ entire food stocks, and reportedly damaging the water supply. Villagers fled to the town of Silea, formerly an aid centre but now mostly deserted by agencies because of insecurity, and on across the border into Chad.

Two weeks later, on 11 and 12 November 2006, government armed forces and Janjawid on horseback attacked Sirba village and IDP camp. At least 11 civilians, including one woman and a schoolboy, were killed and eight injured. Some were taken to al-Jeneina hospital. In the attack, many of the houses were burned, as well as the fields and the grain stores. Herds and possessions were looted. In the Sirba IDP camp dozens of shelters were completely destroyed by fire. Other villages, which had been deserted, in the area round Silea were burnt.

The government stated that there had been an ambush on an armed forces patrol, killing two soldiers, and the attackers fled to Sirba. Other sources said that the attack was unprovoked and the soldiers were killed afterwards.

North Darfur

The Janjawid made a number of attacks from their bases in Sayah and Kuma. On 8 November 2006 they attacked Abu Jira, 25km north of Mellit, killing five people. On Friday 10 November the same Janjawid force attacked Madu, about 80km north of Mellit, and rained heavy weapons fire on the market, reportedly from 125mm guns, before looting it. In the neighbouring village of Hilla Ali Azraq, four people were killed, reportedly children.

Accompanying the government armed forces offensive against Bir Maza, in North Darfur the Janjawid attacked many other villages on the way and in the area. Villages attacked include Tangurara. Yaqubtor, Kereikil, and Kwakwa. They killed an unknown number of civilians, abducted people and looted cattle.

On 15 November the Janjawid abducted six men, cattle owners and hired herders, from a cattle camp at Qadir village. Men abducted by the Janjawid are used as servants to look after looted cattle in their bases. They are routinely ill-treated or tortured, and later killed or released.

On 20 November Janjawid supported by Sudan armed forces attacked al-Jineiq, some 15km north of Bir Maza, killing up to 20 civilians and looting a large number of cattle.

Act now!

Civilians in Darfur need effective protection NOW. They, the African Union, and the Darfur armed opposition groups, and nearly all Sudanese political parties are all calling for a transfer of peacekeeping responsibilities to the UN, a call that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir continues to reject.

ICC Progress on Darfur Investigations
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR)
by Katy Glassborow in The Hague
November 24, 2006

Chief prosecutor suggests indictments could soon be issued for crimes in Sudanese region.

By Katy Glassborow in The Hague (TU No 478, 24-Nov-06)

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, this week told an international conference of supporters of the war crimes court that his team is close to launching proceedings against those suspected of orchestrating murder, rape and torture in the Darfur region of Sudan.

He was addressing representatives from over a hundred countries that signed the founding legislation of the ICC, the Rome Statute, who have convened in The Hague for the fifth session of the Assembly of States Parties, ASP.

They are holding discussions until December 1 about the strategic work of the court, its budget, the location of its permanent premises, and financial contributions to the victims’ trust fund, designed to compensate communities devastated by violence.

The ICC started investigating alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur, after the situation was referred to the court by the UN Security Council.

With Sudan unwilling to provide security for prosecution investigators, they have had to conduct their work in neighbouring countries. Nonetheless,
Moreno-Ocampo said that "in spite of the challenges, my office has succeeded in collecting the evidence required to impartially investigate crimes in Darfur".

The ICC is also currently involved in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which invited the court to investigate suspected war crimes amidst ongoing violence.

Five arrest warrants have been issued against suspects from the rebel Lords Resistance Army in Uganda, and one against the leader of the Union des Patriotes Congolais, UPC, militia in the Congo, Thomas Lubanga.

No one in Uganda has yet been arrested, but Lubanga is partway through his confirmation of charges hearing at the ICC, which will determine in January whether there is enough incriminating evidence against him to proceed to a full trial.

As yet, there are no arrest warrants against individuals suspected of fuelling the ongoing violence in the troubled Darfur region, but this could soon change according to the chief prosecutor remarks.

During a press conference at the beginning of the ASP session on November 23, Moreno-Ocampo said the arrest warrants already issued by the court are having an impact on reducing violence, and that "all three countries are working together to find a solution".

He said that even though Sudan has not signed the Rome Statute and is not a member of the ASP, the country has signed an agreement with prosecutors to help bring the LRA to justice, so that the rebel militia lose “their safe haven in Sudan".

As well as country representatives, NGOs that work as watchdogs for the court are attending the ASP events, coordinated by the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, CICC, a global network of over 2,000 NGOs.

The Executive Director of the Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice, Brigid Inder, told journalists at a press briefing marking the beginning of the ASP sessions that the position of Gender Legal Advisor has still not been filled, four years after the creation of the court - which is a problem, given that the position was explicitly mandated by the Rome Statute.

Richard Dicker, who heads up the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, expressed his concerns that ASP is planning to cut the budget for outreach.

He said communication and outreach are vital to make trials and verdicts at the ICC meaningful to the communities affected by the violence and living in refugee camps. "Underlying all of the discussions about budgets and strategic plans is the further progress in building on the experience to make this court meaningful," he said.

The ASP will continue at the World Forum Convention Centre in The Hague until December 1.

Katy Glassborow is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.

[back to contents]

Uganda (ICC)

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

Uganda: UN should stress peace, justice go hand in hand; Security Council to Issue Statement Welcoming Juba Talks
Human Rights Watch via ReliefWeb
November 16, 2006

(New York, November 16, 2006) – In its upcoming presidential statement on the Juba peace talks, the United Nations Security Council should call on Uganda’s government, the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army and the international community to continue to work toward a peace agreement that respects human rights, and includes prosecutions of those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in accordance with international standards, Human Rights Watch said today.

Today, the Security Council is expected to adopt its presidential statement on the peace talks mediated by the regional government of Southern Sudan, which have been taking place in the Sudanese town of Juba since July 14. The talks hold promise for ending the 20-year conflict, the brunt of which has been borne by the civilian populations of northern Uganda and southern Sudan. In northern Uganda, 1.7 million people remain displaced by the conflict and are living in dire humanitarian conditions.

“Ending the conflict is crucial for the people in northern Uganda and Southern Sudan who have suffered so egregiously for nearly two decades,” said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program. “Fair and credible prosecutions for the most serious crimes are an essential component to building a durable peace, and must be part of any outcome.”

Human Rights Watch has long documented human rights violations committed by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), including torture, sexual abuse, forced recruitment through the abduction of children, and forcing children to kill even members of their own families. Human Rights Watch has also documented abuses by Ugandan government forces, including the killing, raping and beating of civilians. Human Rights Watch has consistently urged for an end to abuses and for perpetrators on both sides to be brought to justice.

In July 2005, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued warrants against five senior LRA leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“ICC warrants for LRA leaders accused of widespread murder, sexual slavery and the brutalization of children have been an important step toward ensuring justice is done,” said Dicker. “Fair and credible prosecutions are not simply mandated by international treaties, but are crucial to building respect for the rule of law.”

International law requires accountability for the most serious crimes. The United Nations Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, and the ICC’s Rome Statute all require fair prosecutions for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Uganda is a party to these treaties. In addition to prosecutions for the most serious crimes, states should support broader accountability efforts for lesser offenses through national and local initiatives that would include trials, a truth-telling exercise, and, where appropriate, use of traditional mechanisms.

Some civic, traditional, and religious leaders in northern Uganda have suggested that traditional justice measures should be utilized as an alternative to ICC prosecutions for crimes committed in northern Uganda. Traditional justice measures may have an important role to play in broader accountability efforts, but they are unlikely to provide prosecution accompanied by fair-trial guarantees as required under international law for serious crimes. These include the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and the presumption of innocence.

A range of other human rights issues are affected by the ongoing negotiations. Human Rights Watch called on the Security Council to monitor LRA leader Joseph Kony’s reported intention to respond within the month to the demand for the release of women, children and other noncombatants that was recently made by the UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland. Human Rights Watch also called on the Ugandan government and its donor country partners to translate plans for relief and reconstruction efforts into concrete improvements in the protection of human rights in northern Uganda.

Background

The conflict in northern Uganda to depose President Yoweri Museveni began immediately after he took power by force in 1986. In December 2003, Museveni invited the ICC to investigate the LRA. In July 2005, the court issued warrants for the arrest of the top five LRA leaders –Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Raska Lukwiya and Dominic Ongwen as well as Joseph Kony – for crimes including widespread or systematic murder, sexual enslavement, and rape, and war crimes such as intentionally attacking civilians and abducting and enlisting children under the age of 15. Lukwiya was reportedly killed in August.

Uganda: Kony, Otti study ICC Rules
AllAfrica.com - New Vision (Kampala)
November 20, 2006

REBEL leader Joseph Kony and deputy Vincent Otti have been briefed about the International Criminal Court (ICC) which has indicted them.

Kampala lawyer Owiny Dollo last week explained to the rebel commanders the Rome Statute and the ICC provisions.

The meeting on Thursday night, around a bonfire in the Lord's Resistance Army Garamba camp, was attended by LRA peace team leader Martin Ojullu and spokesman Obonyo Olweny.

Dollo travelled to Garamba with Gulu RDC Col. Walter Ochora, Gulu LC5 chief Norbert Mao on a "confidence-building mission funded by Government. Now a private practitioner, Dollo was minister in charge of northern Uganda in the 90s.

He told Kony and Otti that the ICC was executing the will of the international community whose resolve he said was strong and was based on diplomacy.

Dollo said, "I believe the President is committed to protecting you if you went to Uganda now. But he doesn't have the power to avert the hand of the ICC. The only way you can avert the ICC is through its statute. I hear arguments that ICC can be confronted politically. That is wishful thinking."

He said, "If the Juba talks don't cater for accountability, it doesn't amount to what Article 53 says. Article 53 says the ICC can withdraw its indictment when there is a new situation: after the LRA have gone through the traditional justice (mat oput).

"Your defence before the ICC lies in what we call 'double jeopardy.' You can say, 'I was tried, don't try me again.'"

Earlier, Mao had said the ICC could drop the indictment if political pressure was exerted. But later, he concurred with Dollo that it can only be done through the law. Kony and Otti appreciated the explanation and invited Dollo and Mao back for another meeting, which will concentrate only on the ICC indictment.

At the meeting, Kony named Lt. Col. Santo Alit, Lt. Col. Okware Odek, Capt. Obwoya, Capt. Awere, and Capt. Aling to meet Museveni. Kony wants them to tour the country as well.

Meeting three emissaries from Acholi on Thursady, Kony asked Ochora to bring the commanders to Garamba for briefing before meeting Museveni.

kony said, "Instead of concentrating on things that bring peace, the Government is quarrelling over the process. This will give chance to spoilers to take advantage. These people will withdraw after getting money."

Kony said although his group wanted to assemble in Ri-Kwangba, the area had no water and medical facilities. "We go there during day and return here where we have a spring," he said.

Kony reiterated his longing to see his mother. "I want my mother. My mother cannot betray me," he said.

Uganda: Peace With Justice
The Washington Post Blogs
by Katherine Southwick, Guest Analyst
November 22, 2006

Joseph Kony, the rebel leader in Uganda who rapes, murders, and abducts children has been indicted by the International Criminal Court. He says he'll help restore peace if charges against him are dropped. Should justice be sacrificed for peace?

To characterize the northern Ugandan dilemma simply as a peace versus justice debate, however, could prolong the plight of two million people and impair the potential of the ICC. More sensibly, our discussion should be about bringing peace with justice.

The twenty-year old war in northern Uganda is one of the world's longest-running conflicts. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) is a splinter group of a rebellion that sought to defend northern interests after a southerner, current President Museveni, came to power in 1986. Although a peace agreement was signed in 1988, LRA leader Joseph Kony continued attacks against the government, initially seeking to create a regime based on the Ten Commandments. Civilians were caught in the middle: the LRA punished those who didn't support it by burning villages, murdering, and abducting thousands of children to train as fighters. Meanwhile, the Ugandan Army committed rape, torture, and murder. As many as 1.6 million people subsist in displacement camps, where nearly 1,000 people die per week from disease or violence. After commencing an investigation in July 2004, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its first indictments for five LRA leaders in October 2005. Then in July 2006, peace talks in Juba, Southern Sudan, began. They are widely seen as the best opportunity for peace ever. The new Government of Southern Sudan is acting as mediator. Now the LRA demands that the ICC indictments against them be dropped.

Anyone who has been to northern Uganda can grasp that peace is the overwhelming priority for the people there, who have suffered the brunt of the conflict and face enormous challenges ahead. But the imperative of accountability has not been lost on anyone, including the LRA leadership. ICC indictees Joseph Kony and Vincent Otti have publicly expressed interest in finding ways to atone for their crimes. I met the LRA delegation in Juba last July as the talks began. We spent hours discussing accountability mechanisms, such as truth and reconciliation commissions, public apologies, and victim compensation. These concepts are rooted in Ugandan culture and the transitional justice experiences of several other countries, including South Africa. In collaboration with Ugandans such as traditional leaders and Parliament, the Liu Institute at the University of British Columbia is doing important work exploring these mechanisms.
The fact remains that ICC prosecution is not obviously among the accountability options in the event a peace agreement is reached. LRA indictees will not voluntarily surrender to the ICC. They could only be brought by force, if not shot on the spot. And in the process, as history demonstrates, efforts to capture the leaders would result in killing child captives and renew attacks on civilians, worsening security in Uganda, Congo, and Sudan, where the LRA is present. To avoid more violence, exile, or some form of accountability apart from ICC prosecution appears to be the only option for the indictees under a peace agreement.

Either the United Nations Security Council or the ICC Prosecutor can legally defer prosecution under Articles 16 or 53 of the Rome Statute, the document constituting the Court, "based on new facts or information" or in the interests of peace, victims, or justice (such as local justice). These provisions convey that under certain conditions, arguably at play in the northern Uganda case, deferral would neither "sacrifice" justice for peace, nor reflect the triumph of realpolitik over rule of law. Indeed, the ICC indictments, while partially blamed for scuttling a previous peace effort led by Betty Bigombe in 2004, have no doubt helped pressure the LRA to come to the table this time. ICC pressure has also strengthened commitment on all sides to acknowledging the need for justice. But these"contributions" cannot be realized unless the ICC credibly holds out deferral as a carrot. The LRA leaders will not strive to meet the conditions implicit in the Rome Statute if there is no real possibility of deferring the indictments or otherwise ensuring the indictees' security.

That peace cannot last without some form of justice is a plausible assumption. Yet equally true is that peace is unsustainable without some deference to local priorities and approaches, including those that bear on factors, such as international indictments, that will ultimately be a major issue in making peace. To insist on international prosecution when peace is at hand (a determination to be made largely by the parties) and when an alternative vision for accountability is emerging on the ground is to allow one idea of the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Having long failed to help resolve this brutal war, the international community, including the ICC, now has an opportunity to help Uganda achieve -- through peaceful means -- lasting peace with justice. This would be a result that is democratically based, refuses to condone impunity, and in the end, is not a bad deal.

Formerly of the Refugee Law Project in Uganda, Katherine Southwick is a lawyer in New York and lived in Uganda in the 1990s. She has worked for human rights organizations in India and Thailand, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague, and the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. State Department. She has commented on the northern Ugandan crisis in the International Herald Tribune, YaleGlobal, NPR, and Voice of America.

[back to contents]

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Official Website of the ICTY

Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina Renders First Judgement in a Case Transferred by the Triubnal
Press Release of the ICTY
November 14, 2006

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina today sentenced Radovan Stankovic to 16 years' imprisonment for rapes and other crimes against humanity committed in the Bosnian town of Foca in 1992. Stankovic was the first ICTY indictee whose case was transferred to a national court as part of Tribunal's completion strategy, under the Rule 11 bis.

According to the indictment, Stankovic was in charge of Karaman's house, a house in Foca where Bosnian Muslim women and girls, some as young as 12 and 14 years of age, were detained so that Serb soldiers and other Serb men could sexually assault them. Stankovic and others treated the women and girls as their personal property. During the entire period of their detention the girls and women were subjected to repeated rapes and sexual assaults. Stankovic repeatedly raped, assaulted and threatened two victims and threatened to rape others.

Today's judgment justifies the Tribunal's strategy of transferring cases, expertise and know-how to the judiciaries in the region, and particularly Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Tribunal is dedicated to assisting local courts in conducting war crimes trials in accordance with international standards of fair trial and remains committed to supporting fair trials for the perpetrators of atrocities committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The ICTY hopes the judiciary of Bosnia and Herzegovina can complement the work of the Tribunal in providing justice and trying perpetrators that will not be tried in The Hague.

To date the ICTY has transferred eleven indictees to local courts pursuant to a Rule11bis ruling. The number of cases referred under Rule 11bis is comparatively small in comparison to the number of cases tried before the Tribunal. Out of 161 persons indicted by the Tribunal, proceedings against 97 of them have been completed.

The work of the Tribunal is still on-going with 23 indictees currently on trial, facing charges for crimes allegedly committed across former Yugoslavia. At the same time, indictees already in ICTY custody or awaiting trial include Ramush Haradinaj, war-time commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army and former Prime Minister of Kosovo; Vojislav Šešelj, leader of the Serb Radical Party whose trial is set to start at the end of this month; Rasim Delic, war-time BiH Army Commander; Ljubo Boškoski, former Macedonian Minister of the Interior; Dragomir Miloševic, former general of the Bosnian Serb Army, accused of shelling Sarajevo, and Jovica Stanišic and Frenki Simatovic, both former heads of the Serbian State Security Service, charged with crimes committed in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Seselj on Hunger Strike
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
by Katherine Boyle and Merdijana Sadovic
November 17, 2006

The prosecution in the case of Serbian ultra-nationalist leader Vojislav Seselj this week filed a motion asking that the accused, who has gone on hunger strike, undergo a medical examination and be assigned defence counsel.

Seselj began his hunger strike on November 10, according to his political associates in the Serbian Radical Party, SRS. They say he is also refusing to take his medication for asthma, hypertension and stomach ulcers.

The SRS has told media in the Balkans that Seselj will only stop his hunger strike on condition his wife is allowed to visit him; he continues to be allowed to represent himself; all court orders and documents are delivered on paper in Serbian; and his standby defence counsel is removed.

In their motion, the prosecution has asked that the commander of the tribunal’s detention unit immediately file a report on whether these media reports are true and if they have portrayed Seselj’s demands accurately.

If the reports are determined to be correct, the prosecution is asking that Seselj undergo a medical examination to determine the current status of his health and how it could change should he continue his hunger strike.

If the physician determines that Seselj will be physically incapable of representing himself, the prosecution asked that permanent defence counsel be assigned to his case, describing his hunger strike as improperly obstructing legal proceedings.

The prosecution described Seselj as completely unwilling “to abide by legally binding decisions” of the tribunal.

Seselj has already lost the right to represent himself once due to his obscene courtroom outbursts, but that right was reinstated on October 23 when the appeals chamber determined he had not received proper warning that it might be taken away.

The prosecution has called his hunger strike another form of “obstructionist behaviour”, which could prevent an expeditious trial.

Speaking at a regular press conference in The Hague this week, the tribunal’s spokesperson Refik Hodzic said it was not true that visits by Seselj's family and friends had been banned.

He also said that "legal advisors" Seselj wants to have certified do not meet the criteria stipulated by the tribunal's rules.

Hodzic confirmed that the accused was refusing to take food from the detention centre, but noted that he "cannot comment on whether Seselj might be taking other food" in his cell.

He also said there are no indications that the defendant’s health has deteriorated.

Seselj’s latest move was greeted by his supporters back home as a heroic deed.

Belgrade Law School professor Kosta Cavoski described Seselj as “a victim of the tribunal whose rights are constantly trampled”.

SRS deputy chairwoman Gordana Pop Lazic told journalists that Seselj “went on a hunger strike for the first time in 1984 fighting against [former Yugoslav president Josip Broz] Tito and now when he is 52, he is on a hunger strike again, but this time against the New World Order".

Seselj, a close ally of the late Yugoslav president Slobadan Milosevic, is charged with the extermination and murder, persecution, deportation and the forcible transfer of non-Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia from 1991 to 1995.

Serb war crimes suspect arrested in Norway
Associated Press via B92
November 21, 2006

BELGRADE -- War crimes suspect Damir Sireta was arrested in Norway yesterday.

Sireta, a former Croatian Serb paramilitary suspected of taking part in the execution-style killings of 200 Croatian prisoners of war in 1991 has been arrested in Norway, Serbia's war crimes prosecutors said Monday.

Damir Sireta, 43, was detained in Norway after an international arrest warrant was issued for him, the Serbian war crimes prosecution office said in a statement.
In 2000, Sireta was sentenced in absentia by a Croatian court to 12 years in prison for separate war crimes committed by Serb troops in the eastern Croatian town of Vukovar.

Espen Skjerven, a lawyer for the national crime police, told Norway's state NRK radio that a Croatian citizen was arrested in Norway on October 6. He declined to confirm the suspect's name, or estimate how long the extradition process might take.

We have, based on a request by Croatian authorities, arrested and detained in jail a Croatian citizen," Skjerven said. "He was convicted of war crimes, more precisely murder in Vukovar in Croatia in 1991."

It was not immediately clear whether Serbia's extradition request will be considered by Norwegian authorities.

Sireta is "suspected of taking part in the execution of 200 prisoners of war on the Ovčara farm" near Vukovar in November 1991, the Serbian prosecutor's statement said.

Another 15 Croatian Serb paramilitaries have recently been convicted by Serbia's war crimes court and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison for their parts in the killings. The investigation into Sireta's suspected role was kept separate because he was on the run. Sireta has not been charged.

Croatia's 1991 declaration of independence from the former Yugoslavia triggered a rebellion by its ethnic Serbs, who with Belgrade's backing captured a third of the republic's territory. The rebellion was crushed in 1995, and Croatia recaptured the territories.

While most of those captured in Vukovar were eventually released, about 200 were taken from a hospital soon after their capture and gunned down at the nearby pig farm in the village of Ovčara.

Sireta, a member of a paramilitary Croatian Serb "territorial defense" unit, allegedly took part in the execution when the Croatian POWs were separated into groups of about eight and sprayed with machine-gun fire before being buried in a mass grave.

The Ovčara case has been a key test for Serbia's judiciary and its ability to punish those responsible for atrocities committed during the Balkan wars of the 1990s under former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Three Yugoslav Army officers are charged in the case and are facing trial before the Netherlands-based U.N. war crimes court, which deals with high-level suspects.

UN tribunal backs earlier decision to quash most convictions of Bosnian Croat general
UN News Service
November 24, 2006

The United Nations war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has dismissed a prosecution request to review its appeal decision to quash most of the convictions of a former Bosnian Croat general who had been accused of ordering a massacre of Muslim villagers in 1993.

The appeals chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled yesterday that it had “dismissed in its entirety” the request for review of the case of Tihomir Blaškic.

Prosecutors had argued that the ICTY should review its judgement in the light of six new facts discovered, but the court found that these were not “new facts” as defined by its rules of procedure and evidence, but additional evidence in relation to facts considered earlier in the case.

In March 2000, the court’s trial chamber sentenced Mr. Blaškic to 45 years’ jail after finding him guilty on 19 counts for war crimes and crimes against humanity for his actions as a commander of the Croatian Defence Council in central Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1994.

But in July 2004 the appeals chamber overturned all but three of the 19 convictions and reduced his sentence to nine years. Mr. Blaškic was granted early release the following month.

At the appeal the judges said “an enormous amount of additional evidence” had emerged since the trial because Croatia had not cooperated previously and had not opened its archives until after the death of former President Franjo Tudjman in 1999.

Mr. Blaškic had been accused, among other actions, of ordering the massacre of about 100 Muslims in the Bosnian village of Ahmici in April 1993. The villagers, who had been hiding in the cellars of several houses, were discovered and shot dead. The houses were then set on fire.

But the ICTY ruled that, once the additional evidence was taken into account, it was not reasonable to find that Mr. Blaškic had control of some of the forces that participated in the massacre, or that his order to attack Ahmici was issued “with the clear intention that the massacre would be committed.”

The judges also said the extra evidence showed there was a Muslim military presence in Ahmici and that it was reasonable for Mr. Blaškic to believe they could launch an attack.

But the judges upheld the trial court's finding that Mr. Blaškic was guilty of illegal detainment and the inhumane treatment of prisoners. He forced Muslim prisoners to dig trenches and build fortifications to use in operations by Bosnian Croats against Bosnian Muslims. The former general also used prisoners as human shields to protect his temporary military headquarters during fighting at Vitez in April 1993.

Zoran Jankovic Pleaded Not Guilty
Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) Justice Report
November 24, 2006

Zoran Jankovic denies charges in the war crimes indictment filed before the Court of BiH.

The indictee Zoran ‘Zoka’ Jankovic pleaded not guilty before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to both counts of his indictment.

“I don’t feel guilty. That is someone else”, said Jankovic.

According to the indictment, between April and the end of June 1992, Jankovic participated as member of Serb Army and jointly with members of paramilitary formations in attacks on Bosniak civilians in the Zvornik and Kalesija areas.

The indictment goes on to allege that, among other things, on April 29, 1992 Jankovic and another person joined by members of paramilitary formations arrested a group of Bosniak civilians who were hiding in a forest in Snagovo village, part of the Zvornik municipality.

After detaining them, Jankovic and others escorted the civilians to Rasidov Han in Snagovo, where they killed 36 people and injured three others. According to the indictment, they immediately burned the victims’ bodies in order to conceal the crime,.

Jankovic has been in custody since May 2006. The Court confirmed the indictment on November 8, 2006.

According to the law, after a plea has been entered the indictment must be sent to the trial chamber for scheduling of the main hearing, which must start within 90 days.

[back to contents]

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

Official Website of the ICTR

Which Courts for Those Who Escape ICTR?
AllAfrica.com - Hirondelle News Agency (Lausanne)
November 15, 2006

Few national jurisdictions suitable for replacing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in the prosecution of alleged perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

The risk is consequently that on December 31st 2008, that is the date the United Nations decided would be the end of the trials in first instance at the ICTR, the last genociders who have taken refuge abroad are likely to never be tried.

According to a source close to the prosecutor, and though it hasn't been officially confirmed by the ICTR, France, Belgium and the Netherlands would have announced their intention to try the suspects of the ICTR who are living in their country.

About the defendants who remain to be judged (5 in prison and 12 on the run), the Tribunal will probably have recourse to the Rule 11bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence for Referral of Indictment to Another Court.

Concerning the suspects against whom the ICTR still hasn't issued indictments, some forty files should be transmitted to national jurisdictions (30 cases have already been transferred to Rwanda and one to Belgium).

However, the judgment by national jurisdictions of the Rwandans suspected of having participated in the genocide of 1994 and who are now in exile is complicated by juridical and even diplomatic reasons.

When France - competent in that case since it incorporated the crime of genocide in its criminal code - volunteered, the Rwandan delegate at the ICTR immediately denied it the right to. According to him, the proceedings Kigali has taken against France, accusing it of having been involved in the events of 1994, deny the country any legitimacy to judge alleged genociders living on the territory.

The main problem most of the other national jurisdictions have with the prosecution of alleged genociders is that their legislations do not give them the statutory power to judge outside of their country foreigners accused of genocide.

The 1948 Convention for the Prevention and Repression of the Crime of Genocide ratified by 133 States does not endow the signatories with universal jurisdiction. However, the text comprises an obligation to extradite suspects to competent jurisdictions abroad.

The best example today is Great-Britain where several Rwandans suspected of participation in the genocide will not be prosecuted by the British justice because the form of the legislation does not give the country the right to prosecute them and even if, as it is advocated by some, the law was amended to allow such proceedings, it would obviously be an obstacle for upholding the rule of law.

Finally, many Rwandan suspects have found refuge in developing countries already struggling to settle their own conflicts.

Absolute universal jurisdictions would have been a suitable solution but there are very few countries endowed with this power. Belgium and Switzerland had adopted it but faced with a flood of complaints, they were forced to minimize its range. These actions often triggered diplomatic difficulties.

Belgium was the first country to get publicly involved in the universal fight against impunity. In 2001, Belgium judged 4 Rwandans charged with crime of genocide. Since then, the country has limited the reach of its jurisdiction. Today, probably the only country endowed with the authority to exercise absolute universal jurisdiction is Spain.

Chances remain nevertheless. The ratification of the treaty establishing the International Penal Court (CPI) and imposing an amendment of the legislation will allow the opening of legal investigations concerning acts constituting serious crimes of international law, the existence of a link between the crime and the foreign national jurisdiction not being required.

Former Army and Gendarmerie Officers Boycot Dallaire's Hearing
AllAfrica.com - Hirondelle News Agency (Lausanne)
November 20, 2006

The former chiefs of staff of the Rwandan Army and Gendarmerie, General Augustin Bizimungu and General Augustin Ndindiliyimana refused to attend this Monday the hearing of the ex-commander on the UN forces on Rwanda in 1994, Canadian General Roméo Dallaire, the Hirondelle Agency reports.

Captain Innocent Sagahutu, former second officer of the survey battalion, did not show up either.

Dallaire, now a senator, testifies via video-conférence from Ottawa.

Bizimungu and Ndindiliyimana protest, by their absence, against this way of testifying which, according to their lawyers, goes against their right to confront their accuser. They consider moreover that the period of time of two half-days that each defense team is granted to cross-examine General Dallaire is insufficient.

The absence of these defendants has given rise to a stormy debate between certain lawyers and the president of the Chamber, Joseph Asoka De Silva ( Sri Lanka). Christopher Black ( Canada) who represents General Ndindiliyimana even questioned the neutrality of both De Silva and his Korean colleague Seon Ki Park, which resulted in the chamber giving him a warning.

Judge De Silva threatened to ask the registrar to terminate Mr. Black's contract should he persist behaving that way.

After a two-hour discussion, the judges ruled that the debates should go on without the three accused.

Only Major François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye, the former commander of the survey battalion, was present.

The four officers who face charges of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes plead not guilty.

General Dallaire, assisted by his lawyer and in the presence of an official of the Canadian General Staff, has started recounting the circumstances of his arrival in Kigali. He has already testified twice before the ICTR.

The last time was in January 2004 in the trial of the former cabinet director of the Ministry of Defense, Colonel Théoneste Bagosora accused of being the « brain » of the genocide.

Will we ever learn the truth about this genocide?
The Independent (Comment)
by Fergal Keane
November 22, 2006

In the months leading up to the explosion of genocide in Rwanda in April 1994, human rights groups, diplomats and UN peacekeepers were warning of the danger of large-scale killing. Here is what the human rights organi-sation Africa Watch wrote:

"The perpetrators, high within government circles, had made meticulous plans. A radio station under their control, Radio Mille Collines, had been whipping up anti-Tutsi hysteria for months. Secret arms caches were kept ready for use by gov-anniversary ernment soldiers and the party militia, the core cadre of which had been trained in the tactics of slaughter. Lists of Tutsis and their Hutu sympathisers had been compiled for targeting. Only a trigger was needed."

None of this would have escaped the attention of the leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, Major General Paul Kagame. Like everybody else watching Rwanda closely, he would have been well aware that Rwanda was a tinderbox. Any violent action by a group linked to the Tutsi minority could provoke a terrible response from the Hutu extremists.

And it is this which makes the allegations from the French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière so potentially devastating if proved to be true. It is an important "if". As yet, nobody has seen the evidence which Judge Bruguière has gathered, let alone tested it in open court. What we have had are leaks, including one which came shortly before the tenth of the genocide, a development many observers believed was more than coincidental, and which infuriated Rwanda as survivors prepared to mourn the dead. In essence, Paris is alleging that Paul Kagame and senior colleagues not only murdered two heads of state (Burundi's president was also travelling on the plane) but threw a match on a bonfire they knew to be soaked in petrol.

When the French first made these charges several years ago, President Kagame reacted with outrage. One consequence was a Rwandan commission of inquiry into the role of France in supporting the old genocidal regime. French support for the Hutu regime has been well documented. It included military and intelligence support that helped keep President Juvénal Habyarimana in power. Human rights groups have criticised the French for failing to conduct any top level investigation into the country's links with the genocidal forces.

Some observers and supporters of Mr Kagame will see the latest French allegations as an attempt to distract attention from France's own role in 1994. Judge Bruguière is a man renowned for his toughness and independence of mind. Over the past decade he has emerged as probably the leading anti-terrorist judge in Europe. But given the secrecy surrounding the Bruguière investigation, apart from his selected leaks to the French media, it has been impossible for observers to get any idea of what further evidence he may have gathered.

Will any of this ever come before a French or United Nations court? The short-term verdict must be that it is highly unlikely. The head of the UN tribunal has already declared the assassination of President Habyarimana to be outside the court's mandate. Investigators who did look at the matter for the UN have claimed their inquiries were shut down on orders from above.

The UN court's mandate finishes in two years and nobody close to the process believes there is much chance of any indictments against Paul Kagame or any other RPF representative before then. And given the past record of French support for the Hutu state there isn't the remotest possibility of any Rwandan co-operation with a judicial process launched from Paris.

An independent inquiry would not alter the fact that a campaign of extermination was launched against the Tutsi minority and moderate Hutus. But just as we have discovered in painful detail how the genocide was planned and carried out by Hutu extremists, we need to know who was behind the killing of the Hutu president. Was it hardline Hutus opposed to power sharing with Tutsis , as many believed at the time of the genocide, or was it, as Judge Bruguière alleges, the Rwandan Patriotic Front? An independent UN inquiry with full judicial powers might have a chance of determining the truth. Even then it is not certain.

But let me finish on a note of cold realism. I don't believe it will happen. Realpolitik will see to that. Rwanda is a story from another lifetime, haunting those who were close to it, but unable to compete with the political demands of Iraq and Afghanistan. The world is preoccupied with other things. Rwanda is a sideshow now.

The writer is a BBC Special Correspondent

Rwandans Protest Probe of Leader; French Magistrate Wants Kagame to Face Genocide Tribunal
Reuters via Washington Post
November 23, 2006

Thousands of Rwandans demonstrated Thursday against a French judge's call for President Paul Kagame to face a U.N. court over allegations that he orchestrated a 1994 plane crash that killed the country's leader and unleashed a genocide.

A day after the judge issued arrest warrants for nine Kagame associates accused of involvement in the attack, as many as 25,000 demonstrators, including genocide survivors, gathered in Kigali's Amahoro Stadium chanting anti-French songs and burning French flags.

The protesters also held placards that read: "French government stop your petty politics and genocide ideology." Some Rwandans have accused France, Rwanda's former ally, of complicity in the Central African country's 1994 genocide.

President Juvenal Habyarimana's plane, which had a French crew, was hit by what was believed to be a missile as he flew to Kigali, the capital, after a summit in April 1994. His killing triggered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus in 100 days of bloodletting.

A French anti-terrorism magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, has filed a document at the Paris prosecutor's office, citing evidence that accuses Kagame and members of his military staff of devising the plan to destroy Habyarimana's plane.

Under French law, the warrants mean the suspects have been placed under official investigation and now face questioning by the French judge. A warrant, however, cannot be issued for Kagame, who enjoys diplomatic immunity as a serving head of state. But a judicial source said Bruguiere had written to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan asking for Kagame to be brought before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

The Rwandan president has denounced the move as "bullying and arrogant." Kagame has denied involvement in the attack and said French judges have no authority over judges in Rwanda.

Rwanda: UN Trashes French Judge Allegations
AllAfrica.com - The New Times (Kigali)
by Edwin Musoni
November 23, 2006

The Arusha, Tanzania-based United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), has trashed France's allegations accusing President Paul Kagame for having ordered to shoot down a plane carrying the then-Rwandan president, Juvenal Habyarimana.

The ICTR has stated that it was at nobody's order to prosecute Kagame. "Magistrate Bruguiere (pictured) took instructions from nobody in the world to issue an arrest warrant; not even UN Secretary General Koffi Annan," the tribunal Deputy Registrar Lovemore Green Munlo said at a press conference in Arusha yesterday.

Munlo also said that the tribunal has evidence to the effect that the missiles which downed Habyarimana's plane were from the arms stock of the ex-FAR and had been purchased from Egypt.

It is also alleged that the missile, SA-16 that downed Habyarimana's plane was imported from Egypt by the then Rwandan government. Also, sources have it that the French had a link to the two missiles. Bruguiere is a French anti terrorism magistrate who said on Monday this week that Kagame should be prosecuted for 'suspected involvement' in the death of Habyarimana. Last month, under the order of UN, the ICTR denied a request to hear testimony from Bruguiere. Also under the same order, the tribunal refused to give a 1997 UN report to Bruguiere which allegedly discusses the spark of the 1994 Genocide.

Meanwhile, protests against the French judge's statement went on in Kigali yesterday, as President Kagame referred to the magistrate's statement as bullying and arrogant. According to French law, the French government does not permit a warrant to be issued for Kagame's arrest because he has diplomatic immunity as a head of state. However, it is alleged that the French is doing so as an escape tactic to their direct role in the Rwandan Genocide and speculation on their responsibility for the death of Habyarimana.

Sources have said that there has been reflection of panic in the Paris government about Rwanda's commission of inquiry about the alleged role of the French government in the Rwandan genocide. Also citing tension from Paris, sources have it that the French's fear for exposure has made Jacques Chirac's government inspire and motivate Bruguiere to act against the law.

Rwanda and France have been at loggerheads since the 1994 massacre; with Kigali government accusing Paris of training soldiers it knew would later commit genocide.

[back to contents]

Iraqi High Tribunal

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

Rights Group Criticizes Saddam Trial
Associated Press via The Washington Post
November 20, 2006

NEW YORK -- Human Rights Watch said Monday that the trial of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was not carried out fairly, calling the verdict "questionable" and saying the Iraqi court was not equipped to handle such a complex case.

The 97-page report, based on observation of the trial and interviews with court officials, lawyers and other key parties in the tribunal, found "serious procedural flaws" in the Iraqi High Tribunal's handling of the trial.

On Nov. 5, the court sentenced Saddam and two other senior members of his regime to death by hanging for ordering the execution of nearly 150 Shiite Muslims from the Iraqi city of Dujail following a 1982 attempt on Saddam's life.

The Iraqi court was created in 2003 after the U.S. invasion to prosecute cases of human rights violations in Iraq.

The U.S.-based rights group said the court had shortcomings in the timely disclosure of incriminating evidence, that the defendants were not allowed to properly confront witnesses, and that the judges at times did not maintain an impartial demeanor.

"The court's conduct, as documented in this report, reflects a basic lack of understanding of fundamental fair trial principles, and how to uphold them in the conduct of a relatively complex trial," the report said. "The result is a trial that did not meet key fair trial standards. Under such circumstances, the soundness of the verdict is questionable."

The group, which is against the death penalty in general, also said the death sentence against Saddam is "an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment," and "in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible."

An appeals court is expected to rule on the verdict and death sentence by mid-January. Saddam's defense team must present an appeal to a higher, nine-judge panel by Dec. 5.

Last week, Saddam's lawyer complained that the court was ignoring his requests for documents to appeal the guilty verdict. There was no immediate comment from Iraqi court officials.

"The verdict against President Saddam Hussein is purely political and all the conditions of a fair trial _ as stipulated under international law _ have been gravely violated, including the right to appeal the verdict in a court of cassation," Saddam's chief lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi said in a written statement.

Iraq: Dujail Trial Fundamentally Flawed
Human Rights Watch
November 20, 2006
Report "Judging Dujail: The First Trail before the Iraqi High Tribunal" available here

(New York, November 20, 2006) – The trial of Saddam Hussein and seven other defendants before the Iraqi High Tribunal for crimes against humanity was marred by so many procedural and substantive flaws that the verdict is unsound, Human Rights Watch said in a 97-page report released today. The shortcomings of the trial, for the killings of more than 100 people from the Iraqi town of Dujail, also call into question subsequent proceedings at the tribunal.

“The proceedings in the Dujail trial were fundamentally unfair,” said Nehal Bhuta of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “The tribunal squandered an important opportunity to deliver credible justice to the people of Iraq. And its imposition of the death penalty after an unfair trial is indefensible.”

The report, entitled “Judging Dujail: The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal,” is based on 10 months of observation and dozens of interviews with judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers, and is the most comprehensive analysis to date of the trial. Human Rights Watch, which has demanded the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants for more than a decade, was one of only two international organizations that had a regular observer presence in the courtroom.

The Iraqi High Tribunal was undermined from the outset by Iraqi government actions that threatened the independence and perceived impartiality of the court. Members of parliament and even ministers regularly denounced the tribunal as weak, leading to the resignation of the first presiding trial judge.

“Judging Dujail” reports previously undocumented and serious procedural flaws in the trial, including:

• regular failure to disclose key evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the defense in advance;
• violations of the defendants’ basic fair trial right to confront witnesses against them;
• lapses of judicial demeanor that undermined the apparent impartiality of the presiding judge; and
• important gaps in evidence that undermine the persuasiveness of the prosecution case, and put in doubt whether all the elements of the crimes charged were established.

The report also shows that the tribunal as an institution has struggled to competently perform basic administrative functions that are essential to a fair and effective trial. It failed to develop effective programs to address the needs of witnesses and victims or to ensure the security of defense lawyers, and ignored the important task of explaining the trial process to the Iraqi population.

The Dujail trial commenced before the Iraqi High Tribunal in Baghdad on October 19, 2005, and ended on July 27, 2006, with a verdict announced on November 5, 2006. Saddam Hussein and two other defendants were sentenced to death by hanging, and four defendants received prison terms ranging from 15 years to life. One defendant was acquitted at the prosecution’s request. The verdict and sentences are currently being appealed to the Appeals Chamber.

The trial concerned the aftermath of an assassination attempt against then-President Saddam Hussein in Dujail in July 1982. Government officials were accused of orchestrating an attack on the town’s inhabitants in revenge for the assassination attempt, resulting in the detention, torture and forced displacement of hundreds, and the deaths of more than 100 boys and men after a summary trial.

“The tribunal failed to meet basic fair trial standards in its first trial. Unless the Iraqi government allows experienced international judges and lawyers to participate directly, it’s unlikely the court can fairly conduct other trials,” said Bhuta.

The tribunal’s statute requires that death sentences be implemented 30 days after the final appeal, and that no commutation is possible. If the death sentence against Saddam Hussein is upheld on appeal, there is a chance that he will be executed before the conclusion of his ongoing trial for genocide against the Kurds.

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty as inherently inhumane punishment and says that executing Hussein while other trials are ongoing will also deprive many thousands of victims of their day in court.

Bone expert given role in Saddam trial
Tulsa World
by Tom Droege
November 23, 2006

NORMAN -- Clyde Snow will leave Thursday for Iraq, where the forensic anthropologist is scheduled to testify in another trial of Saddam Hussein.

Snow, 78, has studied bones in such high-profile crimes as the Oklahoma City bombing and the "Killer Clown" serial murders in Chicago.

An internationally known authority on human skeletal remains, Snow says teeth, bones and bone fragments hold keys to identifying victims and determining their cause of death.

"Bones -- they don't forget, and they always tell the truth," he said.

An Iraqi court recently asked Snow to be an expert witness in Saddam's second trial, on charges that the former Iraqi president had a role in mass killings of Kurds in the 1980s.

This second trial has not garnered the attention of the first because Saddam was sentenced Nov. 5 to be hanged.

It is unclear whether the second trial will conclude before he is executed.

Nevertheless, Snow, an adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma, was packing his bags at his Norman home this week as he prepared for the trip.

In a telephone interview, he discussed why he was asked to appear in the Iraqi court.

In the early 1990s after the Persian Gulf War, which forced Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait, Snow and a team of scientists researched mass graves in Iraq's Kurdish region as part of a humanitarian effort. They collected evidence of human rights violations, he said.

Snow didn't elaborate, saying he doesn't want to jeopardize the case.

Published reports show that Snow presented to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 1992 evidence of executions, torture and other acts against Kurds.

Snow's brush with Saddam surely will rank among his most noted assignments. But there have been many others.

In his 40 years as an anthropologist, he has worked in nearly two dozen countries. He is frequently consulted by medical examiner's offices, including Tulsa's.

Anytime old human bones turn up in Tulsa during a construction site dig, for example, investigators call Snow.

"Whether it is in Tulsa or Ethiopia, we try to put together the answers to the puzzles that the bones serve," he said. "We try to figure out who the people are and how they died."

Snow has worked with human rights teams in foreign countries on several occasions to collect evidence of mass deaths in the hope that it might help bring killers to justice if the political will to do so exists.

In Argentina, he helped exhume skeletons from clandestine graves where thousands of people were believed to have been buried in the late 1970s after being killed by the death squads of the military dictatorship.

Snow later testified about the deaths at a trial in Argentina.

In the late 1970s in Chicago, he worked on the case of John Wayne Gacy, who became known as the "Killer Clown" because he worked as a clown who entertained children.

Gacy was convicted and executed for raping and murdering 33 boys and young men, many of whose bodies he buried in the crawl space under his house.

"I looked at skeletons of his victims," Snow said. "That was another intense project."

After the Oklahoma City bombing, Snow worked nearly around the clock for three months trying to identify some of the 168 victims so their remains could be returned to family members.

Snow also helped analyze the deaths in the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot.

He received a doctorate in anthropology from the University of Arizona in 1967 while working for the Federal Aviation Administration in Oklahoma City examining fatal plane crashes.

Very few people were in the field when Snow got started. That's changed with the popularity of television shows of the "CSI" and "Bones" variety, he said.

The human body contains about 200 bones and 32 teeth, Snow said. Using measuring devices and other instruments, he can determine a person's size and age.

"Each of those bones and teeth can tell a story about the person and how he or she died," he said.

Observing damage to the bones can help determine the cause of death, whether it be by fire, blunt trauma, a gunshot or a machete slice.

Snow, who is traveling to Iraq on his own, says he is accustomed to international travel and cultural differences.

"Being an anthropologist, we're trained to deal with people," he said. "We feel at home just about anywhere in the world."

Dujail Pays for Saddam Verdict
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
by Nesir Kadhim in Dujail
November 24, 2006

Residents of Dujail say Sunnis are out to get them, following Saddam’s conviction.

Saddam Hussein may have been sentenced to death, but the people of Dujail are not at peace.

They have mixed feelings about the conviction of the former dictator and his aides for ordering the mass executions of men from Dujail after a failed assassination attempt against Saddam in 1982.

The predominantly Shia village, 65 kilometres north of Baghdad, is surrounded by Sunni settlements who have vowed to avenge Saddam's conviction, according to Dujail residents.

From the very beginning of the trial last year, local Shia urged the Iraqi government to protect them from possible retaliatory action which had been threatened in the event of Saddam being found guilty in the Dujail trial.

After the verdict, even those who'd lost members of their family in the mass executions did not dare cheer the verdict in public.

Dujail residents say it's now very risky for them to commute to Baghdad. The highway is notorious for abductions and assassinations, but they feel particularly vulnerable because of their village's associations.

Mohammed Jawad, a trader from Dujail, was kidnapped on his way to Baghdad near al-Mishahada, a Sunni village close to the village, only a week before the trial verdict.

Jawad said his abductors accused Shia from Dujail of treachery. When he told them that he is Sunni, they asked him to prove it by praying in front of them. So he did, and they let him go, with a message to deliver to his neighbours.

"They told me to tell them that their judgement day is coming soon and that they will be killed one by one if Saddam is executed," he said.

Whereas Dujail residents privately welcome the conviction of Saddam and his chief aides, they feel ambivalent about that of three local men for assisting Saddam and the Ba'ath party in the aftermath of the failed assassination.

At the special criminal tribunal on November 5, Saddam, his brother-in-law Barzan al-Tikriti, head of Iraqi intelligence in the 1980s, and Awad al-Bandar, head of the Ba'ath revolutionary court, were sentenced to death by hanging, while Taha Yasin Ramadhan, a former Iraqi vice-president, was sentenced to life in prison.

Of four local Ba'ath party members prosecuted in the same trial, Mohammed al-Azawi was acquitted and Abdullah al-Ruwayid, his son Mizhir and Ali Dayih were each handed 15 year prison sentences.

"We had hoped that those sentenced from Dujail would get only a couple of years," said Jasim al-Khazraji, a hairdresser in the village. "We live together in one village, every day we meet their families, so it is hard for us to see them being sad because their relatives were sentenced for so long."

Another resident, Mahmood al-Janabi, said, "We had hoped those from Dujail would be released because they did more good for residents than harm. We as Dujail people have to forget about the past."

Relatives of the Dujail men tried along with Saddam insist their were no grounds for their prosecution. Ghassan Dayih, son of Ali Dayih, said he was so distressed by his father's conviction that he has not been able to leave his house since the verdict.

"My father is an [innocent] victim, many others were involved in the Dujail incident," he said, but preferred not to go into details because he said he did not want to create problems in the village.

Ghassan’s father was an active member of the Ba'ath party in Dujial. Residents describe him as a moderate man. His father, Ghassan’s grandfather, was the village mayor in 1982.

According to Ghassan, his father was "only doing his duty" when he provided information to Ba'ath authorities about people the party was looking to interrogate or arrest.

Ghassan recalls how his father was detained. A police patrol came to the village saying they wanted to question him in connection with the Dujail incident. His father agreed to go along with the officers, assuming that they wanted him to provide witness testimony, said Ghassan.

Two months later, he discovered that his father was being held in the heavily fortified green zone in the capital, at which point he hired a lawyer.

"We didn't see my father for more than three months," said Ghassan, who said the authorities eventually permitted him to do so. "I found him sick, weak, tired and pale. My mother and I cried when we saw him. We were so sad and confused that we had no time to ask him how he was doing."

"I vowed that if my husband is released we would start a new life abroad," said Ghassan's mother.

Dhafir al-Ruwayid, son of Abdullha al-Ruwayid, considered the conviction of his father, a senior figure in well-known local tribe, a “political" move. He said his family and tribe are hoping to appeal the sentences handed down to Abdullah and Mizhir.

Meanwhile, Latif al-Azzawi, son of Mohammed al-Azzawi, was relieved that his father was acquitted for lack of evidence. "My father is innocent, and the court has realised that," he said, insisting that the other local men convicted in the Saddam trial should be released as "they are good people who served the region".

Most people here just want to put the past behind them and get on with their lives, with some believing that the trial has just brought them trouble they could have done without.

Ali Ahmed, an engineer from Dujail, said, "All the violence and threats that we've faced are due to the Saddam trial.” If the people of Dujail had known this would happen, he went on, they would never have demanded that Saddam be prosecuted for the 1982 killings.

Nesir Kadhim is an IWPR contributor in Baghdad.

[back to contents]

Lebanon

Security Council Report: Lebanon
UN News Centre: Lebanon Commission

Annan pushes Lebanon court despite Lahoud protest
Reuters
by Irwin Arieff
November 15, 2006

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan plans to send to the Security Council within 24 hours his plan for a special court to try suspects in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, the United Nations said on Wednesday.

The statement by U.N. chief spokesman Stephane Dujarric came a day after Lebanon's pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, wrote Annan that the Lebanese government's approval of the plan had been illegitimate because he had not himself approved it.

Lahoud also said the Cabinet session that approved the draft was illegitimate. Six pro-Syrian opposition ministers, including all of the Shi'ite Muslims in government, did not attend the session.

But Dujarric told reporters, "We are moving on with the process and the secretary-general intends to submit his report to the Security Council within 24 hours."

John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said he hoped the 15-nation council could act on the plan "very quickly -- hopefully this week." Washington wants rapid approval so the court can be set up and ready to start work once a U.N. inquiry identifies suspects in the case.

Five ministers from Shi'ite groups Hezbollah and Amal quit the Lebanese Cabinet on Saturday when talks over giving the opposition a greater say in government collapsed. A sixth minister, loyal to Lahoud, resigned before Monday's cabinet session.

Lahoud said the Cabinet decision on Monday did not bind the Lebanese state, although he added he supported the idea of the tribunal, "but with regulations."

The U.N. commission investigating Hariri's assassination has implicated senior Lebanese and Syrian security officials in the killing, although Damascus denies involvement.

Hariri was killed in a February 14, 2005, truck bombing shortly after speaking out against Syria's decades-long domination of Lebanon, and his murder was followed by 14 other attacks that killed or wounded anti-Syrian politicians and journalists.

Work on the tribunal began after anti-Syrian Prime Minister Fouad Siniora asked Annan last December for help in bringing the killers to justice once they were identified.

US urges UN action on Lebanon court after killing
Reuters
by Irwin Arieff
November 21, 2006

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 21 (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Tuesday the assassination of a Lebanese Cabinet minister and vocal critic of Syria showed the need for quick agreement on creation of an international court for Lebanon.

Bolton also hinted at Syrian involvement in the killing of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel by gunmen who opened fire on his convoy near Beirut.

He pointed to a string of recent assassinations of anti-Syrian political figures in Lebanon following the February 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri after Hariri spoke out against Syria's domination of Lebanon.

"I think the facts need to be developed, but if you look at ... the evidence that links the Hariri assassination to the other political assassinations, I think people can draw their own conclusions," he said.

Bolton strongly disagreed when asked by a reporter whether council approval of the tribunal plan might feed instability in Lebanon, as some council members had argued.

"How incredibly wrong that would be," he said. "Instability? They are killing people in Lebanon, they are assassinating political leaders."

"Not the time to seek justice? There may be those on the Security Council who say it. Let them step forward and say it," Bolton said.

During a closed-door Security Council meeting on Monday, Russia and Qatar had suggested it might be prudent to delay action on the tribunal due to Lebanon's political crisis, said diplomats present at that meeting.

Gemayel's shooting came as pro-Syrian Hezbollah and its allies prepared to take to the streets to try to topple the government of anti-Syrian Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

It also coincided with the U.N. Security Council's consideration of the plan for an international tribunal to try suspects in the murder of Hariri and the other recent assassinations, which U.N. investigators believe are related to Hariri's death.

Gemayel was among the members of the Lebanese Cabinet to have voted last week to approving the U.N. plan for the tribunal.

The vote came after the resignation of six opposition Cabinet members, throwing the Siniora government into crisis.

Lebanon 's pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, had immediately protested that the vote by the Siniora government was illegitimate.

Security Council, Annan condemn assassination of Lebanese Government minister
UN News Service
November 21, 2006

Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council expressed shock and condemnation today at the assassination of Lebanon’s Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, calling for restraint from all sides and urging national unity.

In a statement issued by his spokesman, Mr. Annan decried the murder of Mr. Gemayel, “who believed strongly in an independent, democratic and united Lebanon,” and offered his deepest sympathies to the late minister’s family and to the Lebanese Government.

Mr. Gemayel died after being shot in his car while travelling through the capital, Beirut.

Mr. Annan said in his statement that “such acts of terrorism undermine Lebanon’s stability, are unacceptable and have no place in a democratic and open society,” adding that “the perpetrators and instigators of today’s attack must be brought to justice to ensure an end to impunity.”

In a presidential statement read out by Ambassador Jorge Voto-Bernales of Peru, which holds the rotating presidency for November, Council members urged all parties in Lebanon and the wider region to “show restraint and a sense of responsibility” to avoid further destabilizing the country.

The Council also voiced grave concern about the efforts of the Lebanese Government and people to solidify democracy in the wake of the assassination, the latest in a series of high-profile killings in the country over the past two years.

The murder of Mr. Gemayel took place on the same day that the Council sent a letter to Mr. Annan offering its backing to the establishment of a special tribunal to deal with those alleged responsible for the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri in February last year.

The Council set up the International Independent Investigation Commission (IIIC) in April 2005 after an earlier UN mission found that Lebanon’s own investigation into the Hariri assassination was seriously flawed and that Syria was primarily responsible for the political tensions that preceded the killing. Its mandate runs until next June.

Serge Brammertz, the head of the IIIC, told the Council in September that evidence obtained so far suggests that a young, male suicide bomber, probably non-Lebanese, detonated up to 1,800 kilograms of explosives inside a van to assassinate Mr. Hariri. The bombing in Beirut also killed 22 others.

The IIIC has been tasked with probing 14 other bombings that have occurred in Lebanon since October 2004, and Mr. Brammertz said evidence points towards his earlier conclusion that many of them were connected.

Lebanon's political crisis heading for showdown
Reuters
by Leila Bassam
November 24, 2006

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah will take to the streets next week to try to topple the government, political sources said on Friday, in a move that would stoke tension in a country already reeling after the assassination of a minister.

A political crisis has been brewing for weeks with the pro-Syrian Hezbollah demanding more say in a government dominated by ministers from an anti-Damascus coalition.

The anti-Syrian camp's rejection of that demand means Hezbollah will now work to bring down Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's 16-month-old government. Siniora's allies say Hezbollah's real aims are to block an international court into the killing of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

"We are heading for a confrontation," a senior political source close to the opposition said. "The room for a political solution is very, very tight.

"There is no room other than going to the street," he said.

The mood in Lebanon is already volatile.

Hundreds of angry Shi'ite Muslims took to the streets in a Beirut suburb on Thursday to protest at what they said were insults against Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah at the funeral of an assassinated anti-Syrian minister the same day.

Nasrallah himself had to appeal for the protesters to disperse before the late-night demonstrations ended peacefully.

All six opposition ministers -- five Shi'ites and a Christian -- quit Siniora's government this month after the majority coalition refused to include enough pro-Syrians in the 24-member cabinet to give the opposition effective veto power.

PLANS DISRUPTED

Hezbollah and its allies had been expected to start protests this week but Tuesday's killing of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, a Maronite Christian, put their plans on hold.

Anti-Syrian leaders who spoke to a large crowd at Gemayel's funeral intensified their attacks on Nasrallah and his Christian ally Michel Aoun.

They called on the opposition to return to the fold but reiterated that they would not submit to its demands.

They accuse Hezbollah of stirring up the political crisis to block a U.N.-backed special tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 killing of Hariri and other politicians and journalists over the past two years.

Many in Lebanon accuse Syria of being behind the attacks. Damascus denies any involvement. The preliminary reports of a U.N. inquiry implicated Syrian and Lebanese security officials.

Siniora has called his depleted cabinet to meet on Saturday approve final plans for the tribunal, in a move that political sources said had further angered the opposition.

The pro-Syrian camp says the cabinet lost its constitutional legitimacy in Lebanon's consensus-based sectarian power-sharing system when all its Shi'ite ministers resigned.

Another political source said Siniora's call to ratify U.N. plans for the tribunal "closes the door for a compromise".

The source said the opposition protests would take place in several parts of Lebanon, not just Beirut.

He said the opposition was considering add other options to its campaign, including sit-ins, strikes by government workers and the resignation of opposition parliamentarians.

There are 57 opposition MPs in the 128-member chamber. Their resignation would trigger by-elections, not a general election.

Beirut OKs international Hariri tribunal
Associated Press via USA Today
November 25, 2006

BEIRUT (AP) — Lebanon's U.S.-backed government on Saturday approved the creation of an international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, overriding objections by Hezbollah and the country's pro-Syrian president.

The approval, though widely expected, was bound to deepen the country's political crisis and spark mass street demonstrations threatened by Hezbollah and its allies to topple the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

Saniora insisted the decision was not "a provocation" against its opponents.

"On the contrary, it is aimed at protecting everybody," he said, according to a statement read by Information Minister Ghazi Aridi after the tribunal's approval.

An ongoing U.N. investigation into the February 2005 truck bombing that killed former Hariri and 22 others has said the killing's complexity suggests the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services played a role in the assassination. Damascus has denied any role in the killing.

Saniora, according to Aridi, stressed that the creation of the international tribunal would help in uncovering "the truth" in former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assassination.

Before the United Nations can set up the tribunal, it also must be approved by Lebanon's pro-Syrian president, who has expressed reservations but denied trying to block the effort, and by the parliament, where Syria's critics hold a majority.

President Emile Lahoud has said that Saturday's Cabinet meeting was "unconstitutional" because six pro-Hezbollah ministers who resigned earlier this month were absent.

Saniora said earlier Saturday he was willing to postpone the Cabinet meeting to approve the tribunal if the six pro-Hezbollah ministers who resigned earlier this month would return to the government. Hezbollah ignored the request.

On Friday, Hezbollah again vowed to hold mass street demonstrations in an effort to topple the government because its demand for greater representation in the Cabinet has not been meet.

The guerrilla group, which has seen an upsurge in its political clout since its war with Israel over the summer, had previously postponed calls for street rallies following Tuesday's assassination of Pierre Gemayel, an anti-Syrian Christian leader who was Lebanon's industry minister.

Gemayel's killing added to Lebanon's instability by reigniting anger at Syria, which dominated Lebanon for nearly three decades but was forced to withdraw its troops last year over accusations it was behind Hariri's killing.

Further complicating matters, Syria suggested Friday it may not cooperate with the tribunal because Damascus was not consulted on the plan, according to a letter it sent to Secretary-General Kofi Annan and circulated Friday at the U.N. Security Council.

Syria said in the letter that the tribunal should not be arranged until after the investigation is finished and announced that hasty adoption of the court's statute "will firmly establish our belief that Syria has no connection with this tribunal."

Business leaders called a two-day strike that began Friday to urge the rival leaders to "take national decisions ... engage in dialogue and stop making threats of street protests." Factories, banks and financial institutions closed, though many small shops remained open.

Underlining the atmosphere of fear following Gemayel's assassination, some Cabinet ministers are taking shelter in the government headquarters in downtown Beirut.

[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

Liberia’s judiciary must be strengthened to stamp out rape and other crimes: UN expert
UN News Service
November 24, 2006

Warning that rape remains “one of the greatest challenges” to human rights in Liberia, an independent United Nations expert has said the country’s judiciary must be strengthened to protect against this and other crimes, as she also decried the lack of progress made with the nation’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its human rights body.

Charlotte Abaka, the UN Independent Expert on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Liberia, recently completed an 11-day visit, during which she met with a wide cross section of officials and civil society and, while noting “significant” human rights progress, she also said much remains to be done in the country after 14 years of civil war.

“I commend the Government for its adoption in January of the Act amending the Penal Law in relation to the definition and penalties for rape… However, I am saddened to learn that there has been as yet little noticeable impact on the prevalence of rape in Liberia, including rape of very young children,” Ms. Abaka said in a press release.

“Rape is one of the greatest challenges to human rights enjoyment of Liberia’s women and girl children and I call on the Government, civil society and the international community to make all efforts to ensure the law is enforced,” she said, emphasizing that the judiciary must be strengthened if human rights are to be protected.

Ms. Abaka also said she was “very concerned” over serious problems affecting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Independent National Commission on Human Rights (INCHR). The TRC is not yet operating fully despite starting its public activities five months ago, while INCHR commissioners have still not been appointed more than three years after the body was included in Liberia’s peace deal.

“Liberia is thus losing valuable time… I urge the Independent Panel of Experts appointed 10 months ago to prepare the shortlist of candidates, and the Government and Chief Justice to take all necessary steps to ensure that competent and credible Commissioners are appointed without further delay,” she said.

Despite these problems however, Ms. Abaka also highlighted several positive steps Liberia has made in protecting human rights as it works to rebuild, chief among these being the recent developments in the education sector, the reassertion of State control over the Guthrie rubber plantation and improvement of human rights on several of the larger plantations.

In a related development, the top UN envoy to Liberia yesterday urged a visiting Swedish donor mission to help strengthen the rule of law in the country, including assisting with the ongoing restructuring and retraining of the national police force.

“The rule of law is a critical aspect of post-conflict peacebuilding. This includes the training and equipping of the Liberia National Police, developing the justice sector and ensuring all Liberians enjoy their human rights,” said Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s Special Representative Alan Doss.

The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency currently supports Liberia with around $14 million per year channelled through UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

[back to contents]

United States

U.S.: Guantanamo detention cases must be dismissed
Reuters
by James Vicini
November 14, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Monday that Guantanamo prisoners have no constitutional right to challenge their detention before U.S. federal judges, and the lawsuits by hundreds of detainees must be dismissed.

In papers filed with a U.S. appeals court in Washington, Justice Department attorneys gave their most detailed argument yet that the cases must be dismissed because of the tough anti-terrorism law signed by President George W. Bush last month.

Lawyers for the prisoners have argued 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.

They say a provision of the law unconstitutionally suspends the right under habeas corpus, a long-standing principle of American law, for detainees to contest their imprisonment.

Justice Department attorneys disagreed. "There is no constitutional habeas right for an enemy alien held outside the United States to challenge his detention," they said. "No actual habeas rights have been suspended."

After Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, the Justice Department told federal district court judges they no longer have jurisdiction over some 200 cases covering more than 400 prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Department lawyers told the appeals court the new law and a similar law, the Detainee Treatment Act that Congress approved late last year, provide "an unprecedented level of judicial review for the claims of the enemy aliens held at Guantanamo."

They said the prisoners received a military proceeding, called a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, to determine if the detainee has been rightfully deemed to be an unlawful enemy combatant.

Those proceedings can be appealed directly to the appeals court, but the prisoners are not entitled to a sweeping factual inquiry by a federal district court judge, the lawyers said. Those cases must be dismissed.

The appeals court is expected to 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.

Rumsfeld, others sued for 'war crimes'
United Press International (UPI)
November 14, 2006

A lawsuit filed Tuesday in Germany accuses outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and 11 others of war crimes.

New York 's Center for Constitutional Rights is behind the suit that alleges Rumsfeld and his subordinates ordered, allowed and implemented abusive interrogation techniques of 11 inmates at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. It also represents Mohammed al Qahtani, a Saudi citizen detained at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since January 2002.

The group chose Germany as its venue for the lawsuit because of a law enabling the German Federal Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes regardless of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out, or the nationality of the people involved.

In a release, the rights group also named alleged participation by former Chief White House Counsel and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes.

There was no immediate response from Rumsfeld or the others.

Iraq rape soldier jailed for life
BBC News
November 16, 2006

A US soldier who raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and helped to kill her family has been sentenced to life in prison with possible parole.

Specialist James Barker was one of four serving soldiers charged over the killings in the Iraqi town of Mahmudiya, which happened in March.

He pleaded guilty and agreed to help prosecutors in an effort to avoid the death penalty.

He could serve up to 90 years in prison, the presiding judge said.

"This court sentences you to be confined for the length of your natural life, with the eligibility of parole," Lt Col Richard Anderson said.

He is expected to be eligible for parole in 20 years.

Specialist Barker was among four soldiers accused of the rape of the girl and the murder of her family.

The three others - Sgt Paul Cortez, Private Jesse Spielman and Private Bryan Howard - are facing court-martial proceedings.

A fifth man, former soldier Stephen Green, has been charged in a civilian court in Kentucky with murder and sexual assault. He has denied the charges.

'I hated Iraqis'

Before the judgement was handed down on Thursday, James Barker told the court that Mr Green had come up with the plan for the rape and killings.

"He brought it up to me and asked me what I thought about it," Barker said.

"By the time we started changing clothes, it was more or less a non-verbal agreement that we were going to go along with what we were discussing."

He also confessed that he "hated Iraqis", telling the judge: "They can smile at you, then shoot you in your face without even thinking about it."

But he added that Iraq had made him "angry and mean" yet that he regretted his actions, telling the court he did not set out to kill or deliberately harm people in Iraq.

"I want the people of Iraq to know that I did not go there to do the terrible things that I did. I do not ask anyone to forgive me today."

Military prosecutors did not comment after the judgement was passed because the three other soldiers still face courts-martial.

U.S. military plans new compound at Guantanamo to hold war-crimes trials
Associated Press via USA Today
November 17, 2006

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — The U.S. military on Friday said it plans to build a $125 million compound at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base where it hopes to hold war-crimes trials for terror suspects by the middle of next year.

The compound, designed to accommodate as many as 1,200 people, would include dining areas, work spaces and sleeping accommodations for administrative personnel, lawyers, journalists and others involved in trials at the isolated detention center in southeast Cuba.

It would create a total of three courtrooms on the base to allow for simultaneous trials, and a separate high-security area to house the detainees on trial.

"We need to build more courtrooms, and we want to do multiple trials," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, a Pentagon spokesman. He said the government hopes to begin construction as soon as possible to be ready for trials no later than July 1.

Human rights groups and foreign governments have called on the Bush administration to close Guantanamo, saying detainees are being held illegally, but the planned construction of new facilities underscores its permanence.

"This is a huge waste of taxpayer money," said Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo detainees. "They've been trying to try people for five years, and until they try somebody according to the Constitution, nothing's going to happen there."

The project, which has not yet been submitted for congressional approval, represents one of the largest upgrades to the detention center since it began taking in suspected enemy combatants in January 2002.

Among the terror suspects expected to face war crimes trials at Guantanamo are 14 "high-value" detainees who were recently transferred from secret CIA custody. They include Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Abu Zubaydah, believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaeda cells.

Plans for the compound are provided in a "presolicitation notice," dated Nov. 3 and posted on the Internet for potential government contractors. It was first reported by The Miami Herald.

The contractor will be required to complete work by July on the compound including "a secure perimeter," a garage for 100 government vehicles and a closed-circuit video transmission center, according to the notice. The new compound will be located in a field overlooking the bay and near the existing courtroom, which sits on a hill.

The U.S. government is drafting new rules for the trials under the Military Commissions Act, which President Bush signed last month. The Supreme Court had declared that previous efforts to try Guantanamo detainees were unconstitutional.

Previously, 10 detainees were charged with crimes. A total of some 70 detainees are expected to be charged under the new law, military officials have said. There are currently some 430 detainees at Guantanamo.

Defense lawyers have challenged the validity of the new law, which bars detainees from using the civilian court system. If a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court rules in their favor, it could strike down the military trials.

Rumsfeld okayed abuses says former U.S. general
Reuters
November 25, 2006

MADRID (Reuters) - Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison's former U.S. commander said in an interview on Saturday.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.

"The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished"," she told Saturday's El Pais.

"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorized these specific techniques."

The Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should suffer "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" to secure information.

"Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind," the document states.

A spokesman for the Pentagon declined to comment on Karpinski's accusations, while U.S. army in Iraq could not immediately be reached for comment.

Karpinski was withdrawn from Iraq in early 2004, shortly after photographs showing American troops abusing detainees at the prison were flashed around the world. She was subsequently removed from active duty and then demoted to the rank of colonel on unrelated charges.

Karpinski insists she knew nothing about the abuse of prisoners until she saw the photos, as interrogation was carried out in a prison wing run by U.S. military intelligence.

Rumsfeld also authorized the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him. I now know this happened on various occasions."

Karpinski said last week she was ready to testify against Rumsfeld, if a suit filed by civil rights groups in Germany over Abu Ghraib led to a full investigation.

President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation after Democrats wrested power from the Republicans in midterm elections earlier this month, partly due to public criticism over the Iraq war.

(Additional reporting by Diane Bartz in Washington)

[back to contents]

Reports

NGO Reports

Thailand: Insurgents Must Stop Targeting Civilians
Human Rights Watch
November 16, 2006

Insurgent groups are posing serious threat to people in the south

(London, November 16, 2006) – Separatist insurgent groups in southern Thailand must stop targeting civilians in their effort to establish an independent state, Human Rights Watch said today. In the past week alone, insurgents have killed and injured more than 30 civilians in targeted attacks in the country’s southern provinces.

“Insurgent groups are targeting civilians to show their power and highlight the Thai government’s weakness,” said Brad Adams, director of the Asia division at Human Rights Watch. “But it’s illegal, and morally indefensible, to attack civilians in pursuit of political goals.”

On November 12, a Buddhist man was shot dead and his wife was critically wounded in an insurgent attack in Rusoh district of Narathiwat province. On the same day, a drive-by shooting at a roadside teashop in the same district killed Sofi Tohlooboh, 30, and seriously injured his brother, Mahama Tohlooboh. On November 11, Sa-aree Yosoh, a 59-year-old deputy village chief, was gunned down near his house. On November 9, eight bombs exploded simultaneously at car and motorcycle showrooms in Yala province, injuring 13 people. On the same day four civilians were shot dead in separate attacks in Pattani province. A day earlier, armed insurgents in Pattani killed two Buddhist villagers before burning down their house. Six people were wounded when bombs went off at three karaoke bars in Narathiwat’s Tak Bai district on November 5.

Human Rights Watch expressed deep concern about the enormous and growing numbers of attacks by insurgent groups on civilians since the renewal of violence in southern Thailand in January 2004.

According to a study released by the Thai Journalist Association and Prince of Songkhla University, insurgent groups are responsible for most of the 5,460 violent incidents in the southern border provinces of Thailand between January 2004 and August 2006 which resulted in 1,730 deaths and 2,513 injuries. Civilians – including government employees and local officials – have been the principal targets of daily attacks, totaling 60 percent (or 1,873) of the victims, followed by police (16 percent, or 481), soldiers (12 percent, or 373), and others (12 percent, or 369).

The study found that the majority of victims were Muslims; 924 Muslims were killed and 718 injured, compared with 697 Buddhists killed and 1,474 injured. The religion of the remaining victims is unknown.

“The insurgents claim to be defenders of the Muslim population against abuses and exploitation at the hands of the mainly Buddhist Thai authorities,” said Adams. “But hundreds of Muslims as well as Buddhists have died in their attacks.”

Common insurgent tactics include drive-by shootings from motorcycles or pickup trucks and the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The use of such devices, apparently emulating tactics used by insurgents in Iraq, has increased the intensity and lethality of attacks on civilians since June 2006. Human Rights Watch has documented disturbing evidence that insurgent groups have engaged in beheadings and in mutilation of corpses as a form of punishment of Buddhist and Muslim civilians suspected of being informants, or of collaborating with Thai authorities.

At least 17 victims have been beheaded, and more than 40 Buddhists and Muslims have been hacked to death with machetes, over the past two years.

There have been hundreds of insurgent attacks on teachers and schools since January 2004. Some districts have shut down all government schools due to security concerns after attacks. Buddhist monks in Narathiwat decided to stop taking alms after a bomb ripped through a column of monks, along with the soldiers guarding them, on October 22. That was the latest in a series of attacks on Buddhist monks, —including shootings, bombings and hacking with machetes. On November 8, the entire Buddhist population from three villages in Yala’s Than To and Bannang Sata districts fled their homes and sought refuge at a Buddhist temple after armed insurgents killed Boon Iamsa-ard, 68, and his daughter Aree Iamnirand, 28, and then burned down their house.

Since the new spate of violence began in 2004, insurgent attacks have become increasingly coordinated and targeted against civilians. On September 16 insurgents targeted department stores and related locations in Hat Yai district of Songkhla province, killing four civilians and injuring 59. Another series of coordinated explosions took place on August 31, targeting commercial banks in Yala. On June 15 and 16, insurgent groups launched a series of bombs attacks in 31 of 33 districts in the southern border provinces.

“Increasingly, insurgent violence is being used to scare away Buddhists and keep Muslims under control,” said Adams.

Daily violence and a climate of fear have seriously disrupted the lives of ordinary people. Many Buddhists and Muslims close businesses and stop working on Fridays, the Muslim day of prayer, after insurgent groups issued an order to do so last year. Muslim families have been pressured to support insurgent activities, whether providing supplies and sanctuary or giving up their children to the youth wing (pemuda) and guerilla units (Runda Kumpulan Kecil or RKK) of the National Revolution Front-Coordinate (Barisan Revolusi Nasional-Koordinasi or BRN-C) in order to take part in the uprising against Thai authorities. Insurgent groups are coordinated within the structure of BRN-C.

In response to insurgent attacks, the Thai authorities have carried out extrajudicial killings, “disappearances,” and arbitrary arrests. The Thai government has imposed special security legislation, including the Executive Decree on Government Administration in Emergency Situations and martial law, and increased militarization in Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat provinces.

The interim government of General Surayud Chulanont, installed after the military coup in September, has signaled a new approach to the south. On November 2, Surayud offered a public apology to residents of the south, admitting that they held serious and legitimate grievances against the government. At the same time, he announced the re-establishment of the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Center (SBPAC) to help investigate complaints from the Muslim population concerning corrupt, abusive or inept government officials. But it remains unclear how the interim government will take concrete action to end state-sanctioned abuses and the culture of impunity in the south.

“The Thai government must address abuses by its own forces and show good faith to the people trapped between violent and abusive insurgents and government forces,” said Adams. “The new government must act quickly if it wants to win the trust of people in the south.”

Human Rights Watch called on the Thai government and insurgent groups to institute concrete measures to protect civilians and immediately cease all attacks that do not discriminate between combatants and civilians. In addition, Thai authorities and insurgent groups should permit independent, impartial and effective investigations of allegations of human rights abuses, and ensure that those found responsible be held accountable.

“Neither side in the conflict in Thailand’s southern border provinces pays enough attention to human rights issues,” said Adams. “The failure to address human rights concerns adds to the growing hostility, making peaceful conflict resolution through dialogue an impossible goal.”

Guatemala Appeal Case: Crimes against humanity remain unpunished in Guatemala
Amnesty International
November 17, 2006

On 6 May 2001 twenty-one indigenous communities affiliated with the Association for Justice and Reconciliation (AJR), legally represented by the Center for Human Rights Legal Action (CALDH), presented allegations to the Public Prosecutor’s Office against General José Efraín Ríos Montt and others for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity committed during Guatemala’s internal armed conflict that lasted for 36 years and ended with the signing of the Peace Accords in December 1996.(1)

Prolonged delays in the five-year investigation

After the complaint was filed with the Public Prosecutor's Office, a special prosecutor took testimony from approximately 114 eyewitnesses to the massacres (this includes testimonies in the separate case against Lucas García(2) and others). However, the special prosecutor was transferred in December 2004 and a second special prosecutor was appointed in July 2005, but in June 2006 he, too, was transferred. Two months later, yet a third special prosecutor was appointed.(3)

Unfortunately, the office of the attorney general has failed to make progress over the past five years to investigate vigorously the extremely grave allegations. In addition to the repeated changes of special prosecutors and delays in replacing them disrupting the continuity of the investigation, there are a number of other reasons for the slowness of the criminal investigation:

Apart from testimonies from eyewitnesses, few other lines of investigation have been pursued. Amnesty International understands that no serving or former military officers have been subpoenaed to provide testimony;
The Defence Ministry refused requests by the Public Prosecutor's Office to hand over military documents due to "state security" and the special prosecutors have not attempted to obtain court orders compelling them to produce the documents during in camera hearings with safeguards for any legitimate security concerns;
There have been numerous dilatory appeals by General Efraín Ríos Montt and the others on procedural questions;
Some courts lack independence from the political branches of government and can be susceptible to political pressure. There is no effective system to strengthen their independence and protect those judges and lawyers who are threatened.(4)

The criminal investigation in Spain and the extradition request

Given the stagnation of the case in the Guatemalan judicial system, the lack of political will of the government in supporting measures to end impunity for past human rights violations, in 1999 the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Rigoberta Menchú filed cases of genocide, torture and murder in Spanish courts.

The Spanish National Court (Audiencia Nacional) took jurisdiction of the case in 2006, after Spain’s Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) ruled in 2005 that Spanish courts can exercise universal jurisdiction over crimes under international law committed during Guatemala’s internal armed conflict.

National Court Judge Santiago Pedraz carried out a fact-finding trip to Guatemala in June 2006 but was forced to return empty-handed due the "obstructionism" and lack of cooperation of those accused of atrocities and of the Guatemalan judicial system.

However, despite these obstructions, on 7 July 2006 Judge Santiago Pedraz charged several former Guatemalan military officers, including Ríos Montt, with genocide, torture, and other crimes against humanity, and issued international arrest warrants for their involvement in atrocities committed under their command responsibility.

According to international law, no state has a better claim than any other to initiate an investigation and, if there is sufficient admissible evidence, a prosecution for crimes committed against the entire international community. Indeed, in certain cases, any state may exercise such jurisdiction even if the territorial state has commenced an investigation or even a prosecution or has reached a final judgment. It is crucial that investigations on human rights violations and prosecution of those responsible are not hampered by political consideration. Amnesty International is calling on the Guatemalan authorities to comply with Guatemala’s obligations under international law by ensuring the judicial process initiated on 6 May 2001 in Guatemala against General Efraín Ríos Montt and others for crimes against humanity is carried out in a prompt, impartial and effective manner while also supporting the legal process initiated by judge Santiago Pedraz in the Spanish Courts. If it does not carry out such an investigation in accordance with international standards, then it should promptly extradite the accused to Spain.

Background information

In 1998 the UN-sponsored Commission for Historical Clarification (a ‘Truth Commission’) concluded that over 200,000 people had ‘disappeared’ or were killed during the internal armed conflict which ended in 1996. Of the victims it could document and identify, 83 per cent were of Mayan origin. Some 93 per cent of human rights violations were attributed to government forces.(5) General José Efraín Ríos Montt headed the Government of Guatemala from March 1982 to August 1983, which corresponds to one of the highest peaks in human rights violations of the 36-year internal armed conflict. These included killings, rape, torture, enforced disappearances and genocide perpetrated against the indigenous population.

Israel / Lebanon: Out of all proportion - civilians bear the brunt of the war
Amnesty International
November 21, 2006

Preface
From the outbreak of the war between Hizbullah and Israel in July 2006, Amnesty International called on both sides to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law (the rules of war), particularly those relating to the protection of civilians. In July Amnesty International published Israel/Lebanon: Israel and Hizbullah must spare civilians – Obligations under international humanitarian law of the parties to the conflict in Israel and Lebanon, a reminder to the parties of their legal obligations.(1)

Amnesty International delegates visited both Israel and Lebanon during the fighting to research serious violations by both sides. As the conflict escalated, with both sides repeatedly violating international humanitarian law, Amnesty International joined the call for a ceasefire made by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and other world leaders, and its members continued to appeal specifically for the protection of civilians.

Following the end of the hostilities, Amnesty International delegates again visited both countries for further research and discussions with officials. As a result, the organization issued two publications covering some aspects of the conflict. In August it published Israel/Lebanon:Deliberate destruction or "collateral damage"? Israeli attacks against civilian infrastructure.(2) Amnesty International found that Israeli forces had committed indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, pursuing a strategy which appeared intended to punish the people of Lebanon and their government for not turning against Hizbullah, as well as harming Hizbullah’s military capability.

In September, Amnesty International published Israel/Lebanon:Under fire: Hizbullah’s attacks on northern Israel.(3) This concluded that Hizbullah’s bombardment amounted to direct attacks on civilians as well as indiscriminate attacks. The attacks also violated the prohibition under international humanitarian law on attacking the civilian population as reprisal, regardless of what abuses the enemy may be carrying out.
This new report covers further aspects of the conduct and consequences of Israeli military actions in Lebanon, and looks into allegations that Hizbullah’s fighters used civilians as "human shields". The report recalls standards of international human rights, humanitarian and criminal law relevant to the conflict. It analyses patterns of Israeli attacks and a number of specific incidents in which civilians were killed in Lebanon. It highlights the impact on civilian life of other Israeliattacks, including the legacy of the widespread cluster bomb bombardment of south Lebanon by Israeli forcesin the last days of the war. The final chapter summarizes Amnesty International’s conclusions with regard to the overall conduct of both Israel and Hizbullah, and makes recommendations addressed to the parties to the conflictas well as to the international community.

The report is based on field research conducted in Lebanon and Israel in July, August and September 2006, including interviews with victims; a briefing by a senior Israeli commander in September 2006 and other discussions with Israeli and Lebanese military and government officials, as well as senior Hizbullah officials; information from non-governmental groups; and official statements and media reports. In September and October Amnesty International sought from the Israeli authorities specific information on attacks by Israeli forces included in this report, but received no such information.

Amnesty International has examinedthe conduct of each party to the conflict, in light of the standards laid down by international law and binding on those parties, as it does in other conflicts. Each side in this conflict has committed serious violations of international law, including war crimes. These are addressed on their own merit, seeking accountability, redress and the prevention of future violations.

Report continues here.

OPT: Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks
Human Rights Watch
November 22, 2006

(Jerusalem, November 22, 2006) – Palestinian armed groups must not endanger Palestinian civilians by encouraging them to gather in and around suspected militants’ homes targeted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Human Rights Watch said today.

Calling civilians to a location that the opposing side has identified for attack is at worst human shielding, at best failing to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attack. Both are violations of international humanitarian law.

According to media reports, on Saturday the IDF warned Mohammedweil Baroud, a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees, to leave his home in the Jabaliya refugee camp as they planned to destroy it. Baroud reportedly summoned neighbors and friends to protect his house, and a crowd of hundreds of Palestinians gathered in, around, and on the roof of the house. The IDF said that they called off the attack after they saw the large number of civilians around the house. On Monday, the BBC also reported that the IDF had warned Wael Rajab, an alleged Hamas member in Beit Lahiya, that that they were preparing to attack his home, and that a call was later broadcasted from local mosques for volunteers to protect the home.

“There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm’s way is unlawful.”

Various media have reported that other Palestinian officials and armed groups have voiced support for these tactics. In a visit to Baroud’s house on Sunday, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority reportedly said: “We are so proud of this national stand. It’s the first stop toward protecting our homes ... so long as this strategy is in the interest of our people, we support this strategy.” A spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees was also quoted as saying: “We call upon all the fighters to reject evacuating their houses, and we urge our people to rush into threatened houses and make human shields.”

“Prime Minister Haniyeh and other Palestinian leaders should be renouncing, not embracing, the tactic of encouraging civilians to place themselves at risk,” said Whitson.

On November 3 the BBC also reported that Hamas radio broadcasted an appeal to local women to go to a mosque to protect 15 alleged militants holed up inside from Israeli forces surrounding the building. Many women went to the mosque and reportedly two were killed and 10 more injured when Israeli forces opened fire.

It is a war crime to seek to use the presence of civilians to render certain points or areas immune from military operations or to direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attack. In the case where the object of attack is not a legitimate military target, calling civilians to the scene would still contravene the international humanitarian law imperative for parties to the conflict to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attack. In the event that such abuse takes place, however, parties to the conflict remain obliged under international humanitarian law to take precautionary measures and not to target civilians or cause excessive civilian injury or damage in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.

In other words, while civilians placing themselves in the way of military actions take on heightened risks, they cannot be considered legitimate targets by the opposing force, and parties to the conflict should cancel or suspend attacks where excessive civilian damage is anticipated. Human Rights Watch said that the IDF had properly respected its obligations under international humanitarian law in suspending the attack on the Baroud home that would have caused substantial civilian harm.

Human Rights Watch, however, also reminded the IDF that even in the absence of deliberately orchestrated measures to maximize a civilian presence near its targets, any destruction of civilian property must be done strictly in compliance with international humanitarian law. An ostensibly civilian object such as a home can be the subject of attack only if it is being used for military purposes at the relevant time and its destruction makes a direct and immediate contribution to the fighting.

“The IDF should immediately explain what its military objective is in targeting the homes that it has ordered to be vacated,” said Whitson.

According to the Israeli human rights organization B’tselem, between July and November 15 this year, the IDF destroyed 251 homes in Gaza, leaving 1577 people homeless. In 105 of these cases the IDF destroyed the home by airstrike after warning the inhabitants to leave. While the IDF generally claims that militants used those homes to store weapons, they have not presented any concrete evidence in individual cases.

Human Rights Watch has also reported extensively on the coerced use of Palestinian civilians during military operations, and documented the use of Palestinian civilians as “human shields” and for military purposes during the Israeli military operations in Jenin in 2002. The Israeli High Court confirmed the illegality of using human shields in 2002.

As recently as July 2006, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups have documented the IDF’s forcible use of Palestinians as human shields in a well publicized incident during military operations in Beit Hanoun. According to the groups, the IDF blindfolded six civilians, including two minors, and forced them to stand in front of soldiers who took over civilian homes during a raid in northern Gaza.

[back to contents]