War Crimes Prosecution Watch
is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and
articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues
pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes
throughout the world. To subscribe, please email warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org and type "subscribe" in the subject line.
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber
Official Website
Djukic: Severe trauma
BIRN Justice Report
By: Kapija Tuzla
June 17, 2008
Prosecution witness Amra Ponjavic recalls the massacre she
witnessed in Tuzla on May 25, 1995. She said that, besides the physical pain,
she still suffers from "a severe trauma" as a consequence of that
event. "It was one of a few quiet and sunny days that year. Me and my
friends went to Kapija. The music was loud, but my friend said he heard an air
attack alarm. I stood up, wanting to leave the place. At that moment a shell
hit the ground. I remember the light, tingling in my ears, smoke and dust. All
of a sudden it was all dark around me. It was as if I stayed by the table alone
and everyone else lied on the floor," the witness said.
Ponjavic testified at the trial of Novak Djukic, former
commander of Ozren Tactical Group with the Republika Srpska Army, VRS. The
Prosecution charges him with having ordered the shelling of Tuzla on May 25,
1995, when 71 people were killed and several hundred were wounded at Tuzlanska
kapija. Ponjavic recalled that, after having noticed that she was wounded and
feeling afraid of "another shell," she started walking away from the
place. She said that, as she was leaving Kapija, she saw that a two-year old
son of her friends had been killed and she saw many wounded people. "I
went to 'Gradina' hospital together with two wounded boys. The doctors did not
know what had happened. A few minutes later, the hospital was crowded with
patients. Corridors were full of wounded people," Ponjavic told the Court.
Charles Bratz testified as Prosecution witness. After the shell hit Kapija,
Bratz, former deputy commander of the North-East Sector with UNPROFOR,
"coordinated the investigation" on May 26, 1995. As he explained to
the Court the investigation was conducted by UNPROFOR experts and a team from
Sarajevo and Tuzla. According to this witness, he visited the location which
was hit by the mortar on that day. He also visited the hospital where there
were "about 200 young people," as well as the morgue to which the
killed people were transported. The recording, showing the visit to those
locations, was presented by the Prosecution in the courtroom. The mentioned
recording was included as evidence. The recording shows a room, in which there
were many killed people and children, as well as wounded persons, whose body
parts were missing.
As Bratz said, three days after the shelling, on May 28,
1995, a joint report was made and he signed it. "The report contained a
clear conclusion saying that it was a 130mm shell and the attacks were
intentional and had Tuzla town as its target. They may not have targeted the
downtown area but they targeted the town for sure," Bratz explained. The
report was presented by the Prosecution as evidence, together with numerous
attachments, such as the drawings of the location hit by the shell,
photographs, list of the killed, drawing of the shell and the weapons, as well
as a map, showing "the location from which the shell had probably been
fired." This location was not mentioned in the courtroom, although the
report makes a reference to that location. The indictment alleges that Djukic
ordered the Artillery Squad, situated in Panjik village on mount Ozren, to
shell Tuzla, using 130mm cannons. The trial is due to continue on June 24, when
four Prosecution witnesses will be examined.
Bozic et al: UN Report on attack against Srebrenica
BIRN Justice Report
By: Bozic, Blagojevic; Zaric, Zivanovic
June 17, 2008
A court expert, engaged by the Defense of the four former
military police members, denies that Srebrenica was heavily shelled in July
1995.
On the second day of his testimony, court expert Radovan
Radinovic, who was invited by the Defense teams, claims that the reports, made
by international observers, describing detonations in Srebrenica in July 1995
were "not correct."
According to this court expert, the international observers
"were not situated in the town" and therefore they could not have
known what was happening ten kilometers away from them. In addition, Radinovic
said that, if it was true that about 300 or 400 detonations could be heard in
Srebrenica per day, it would mean that the town was severely destroyed,
"which was not the case." As per a request made by the Defense of
Zdravko Bozic, Mladen Blagojevic, Zeljko Zaric and Zoran Zivanovic, Radinovic
compiled a report on the role of the military police in Srebrenica in July
1995.
The State Prosecution charges the four men, as members of
the Military Police Squad with the Bratunac Brigade, with having participated
in the separation of men from women and children and guarding buses, which
transported the captured men from Potocari to Bratunac in July 1995. The men
were then detained in a school building in Bratunac, where they were mistreated
and abused, and some were murdered. During cross-examination, Radinovic said
the Military Police Squad did not have a mandate to control the convoys
transporting humanitarian aid, which were supposed to go to the protected enclave
of Srebrenica, and they were acting as "physical security" only. As
per the court expert's findings, Momir Nikolic, chief of the security section
with the Bratunac Brigade Staffs, had "a task to control the humanitarian
aid convoys which came to Srebrenica in order to avoid possible
malversation." The Hague Tribunal sentenced Momir Nikolic to 20 years
imprisonment for crimes committed in the Srebrenica area. Asked by the
Prosecutor if Srebrenica residents received the food transported by the convoys,
the witness said that "all previously announced convoys were allowed to
enter Srebrenica, provided that they transported the goods, as per the earlier
announced lists."
The Prosecutor asked the court expert why about 2,000
Bosniak men were separated from women, children and the elderly in Potocari,
bearing in mind that the Bratunac Brigade had a list of 389 persons, who were
suspected of having committed war crimes against Bosnian Serbs, as indicated by
the court expert on the first day of his testimony. The court expert responded
by saying that he did not know who had made the list of 389 names, adding that,
on the basis of their documents, the identity of those men should have been
determined and not all of them should have been separated. As per the court expert's
findings, the Military Police Squad "had a task to escort the captured
persons" and there were regulations, specifying how those people should
have been treated and when it was allowed to use force. The court expert said
that the detainees were escorted by members of the Military Police Squad and
some other, "even more important, units." "All tasks executed by
the military policemen were under the mandate of the Bratunac Brigade,"
the court expert concluded. The trial is due to continue on June 26.
Marko Adamović and Boško Lukić plead not
guilty
State Court of BiH
June 18, 2008
At the plea hearing before the Section I for War Crimes of
the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), the accused Marko Adamović and
Boško Lukić plead not guilty. The Indictment charges Marko
Adamović and Boško Lukić with the criminal offenses of Crimes
against Humanity and Organizing a Group of People and Instigating the Perpetration
of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes.
The Indictment alleges that from April to December 1992
Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović, together with other members of
the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality, planned, prepared, instigated,
aided and abetted and participated in the campaign of persecution of the
non-Serb population of the Ključ Municipality. Boško Lukić acted
as the Commander of the Territorial Defense Staff of the Ključ
Municipality, member of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality and
member of the Ključ Town Defense Command, while Marko Adamović acted
as a member of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality, Commander of
the Ključ Town Defense Command and the Deputy Commander of the Ključ
Battalion of the Territorial Defense.
Among other things, the Indictment alleges that after the
shelling of the Ključ settlements Pudin Han and Velagići, inhabited
by the Bosniak population, on 28 May 1992, all the civilian population was
called to gather near the Community Center in Velagići. After civilians
gathered in front of the Centre, they were ordered to go in front of the
Ključ Public Security Station. While going towards the Ključ Public
Security Station, the civilians were allegedly stopped at a police checkpoint
and the men were separated from the women and children. After the separation,
the women and children were released without a right to return to their homes,
while the men were interrogated and registered, and then some of them were
released, while more than 200 of them were allegedly deprived of liberty and
imprisoned in the premises of the Primary School Nikola Mačkić.
The Indictment further alleges that from 27 May 1992 the
army and the police searched villages and settlements in the Ključ
Municipality inhabited by the Bosniak population and that civilians were
arrested and brought to the detention facilities established in the primary
school in Sanica, the primary school Nikola Mačkić in Ključ, the
former railway station in Sanica and the Ključ Public Security Station.
Gasal et al: Trial postponed
BIRN Justice Report
June 18, 2008
The trial of four former Bosnian Army members has been
postponed as the witnesses failed to appear.
A Prosecution witness who was invited to testify at the
hearing on June 18, failed to appear in the courtroom. The trial of the four
former members of the Bosnian Army has therefore been postponed until June 25,
2008.
As per the current legal regulations, the gap between two
subsequent hearings may not be longer than one month. However, Trial Chamber
Chairman Davorin Jukic said that, in the case, this was "a rather
reasonable time span" and "a retrial would not be in the best
interest to the indictees." The parties did not have any objections
concerning the extension of the prescribed time span between the hearings.
The State Prosecution charges Nisvet Gasal, Musajb Kukavica,
Enes Handzic and Senad Dautovic with the crimes against civilians in the
Bugojno area. Handzic and Dautovic are charged with war crimes against the
wounded and the sick and war crimes against prisoners of war. The indictment
alleges that, from August 1993 to March 19, 1994 Gasal and Kukavica were
responsible for the functioning of the detention camp formed at 'Iskra"
football stadium, where more than 300 Croatian men were held in inhumane
conditions. Among other things, the detainees were used as human shields by the
Bosnian Army at the frontlines. The indictment alleges that Handzic and
Dautovic, in cooperation with the civil municipal authorities in Bugojno and
military units of the Bosnian Army, "participated in a joint criminal
enterprise, with an aim of detaining, torturing and killing the detained
Bosnian Croats." According to the indictment Handzic was assistant commander
for security with the 307th Brigade of the Bosnian Army and Dautovic was
commander of the Joint Staffs of the Bosnian Army for Bugojno town. They are
charged, on the basis of their command responsibility, with having failed to
undertake measures in order to prevent the crimes against detainees and punish
the perpetrators.
Status conference in the Vinko Kondić case scheduled
State Court of BiH
June 19, 2008
A status conference before the Section I for War Crimes of
the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), in the Vinko Kondić case, has
been scheduled for 20 June 2008 starting at 2:00p.m. in courtroom 4. Vinko
Kondić is charged with the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity and
criminal offence of Organization of Group of People and Incitement to
Perpetration of Criminal Offences of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity.
The indictment alleges that since June 1991 the accused
Kondić, as a member of the Executive Committee of the SDS Municipal
Organization in Ključ, the Commander of the Ključ Police Station
(SJB), a member of the Ključ Crisis Headquarters and a member of the
Ključ Defense Council, together with other members of the SDS as well as
with the military and civilian authorities in the Ključ Municipality, took
part in the perpetration of criminal offences against Croat and Bosniak
civilians.
On 18 November 1991, the accused Kondić undertook
activities aimed at stopping a convoy of refugees from Slunj, the Republic of
Croatia. On this occasion, the police under the command of Vinko Kondić
took out from the bus and deprived of liberty able-bodied Croat male civilians,
30 of them at least. Having been tortured in the Police Station (SJB)
Ključ, the civilians were transported into the previously formed camp Stara Gradiška. The indictment further alleges that during the period
from 27 May 1992 to late August 1992 the military and the police searched the
villages and settlements in Ključ, Sanica and other villages inhabited by
the Bosniak population. On this occasion, civilians were unlawfully arrested
and taken to the detention facilities of the elementary schools in Sanica and Nikola Mačkić in Ključ, the former railway station in Sanica
and the Police Station (SJB) Ključ. During the unlawful arrest at least
1161 men were escorted by the police and transported to the Manjača Camp.
Immediately upon the arrival in the Camp, one civilian died due to the punching
injuries sustained, while two more civilians died in the Manjača Camp.
The indictment further alleges that on 10 July 1992 the
military entered into the villages and hamlets of the Ključ Municipality.
On this occasion, all detained men were taken to the premises of the Elementary
School in Donji Biljani. Some of these men were put on buses, taken into an
unknown direction and killed, so that on 10 July 1992 at least 219 persons were
killed.
Kravica: Two trials completed
BIRN Justice Report
June 19, 2008
Thirty months after the indictment was confirmed, two trials
for genocide in Srebrenica have now been completed.
Two and a half years since the confirmation of the
indictment, the evidence presentation at the trial of Petar Mitrovic and
Miladin Stevanovic has been completed. The Prosecution charges the two men with
having participated in the genocide after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.
The Trial Chamber, sitting at both trials, announced that the closing arguments
"might be presented on July 9." Mitrovic and Stevanovic, former
members of the Second Special Police Squad from Sekovici, were originally
charged under the same indictment as nine other policemen and members of the
Republika Srpska Army, VRS, but, in May this year, the Court divided the case
intro three separate cases. Although there are now three separate cases, the
Prosecution proposed to present its closing arguments at a joint hearing, to be
attended by all 11 indictees. At the last hearing, held on June 19, Krsto
Stojkic, former criminal inspector, who was an investigator in the Defense
team, was examined. The Defense made a proposal to include Nenad Vasic's
statement as evidence, claiming that he did not want to come to Sarajevo. Krsto
Stojic, who examined Vasic in 2005, said that he refused to appear at the
hearing "as he is afraid of being arrested". The Trial Chamber
rejected the proposal to include his statement as evidence. The public was not
informed about the content of Vasic's statement. The presenting of evidence at
the trial of Petar Mitrovic was completed in early June, after the Defense
cross-examined protected Prosecution witness S4 at a closed session.
Mihaljevic: Prosecution files appeal
BIRN Justice Report
June 19, 2008
The State Prosecution has appealed the first instance
verdict against the former HVO member, which acquitted him of war crime
charges.
The Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina filed an appeal
against the first instance verdict, acquitting Zdravko Mihaljevic of the
counts, charging him with war crimes in Kiseljak municipality in 1993. As
indicated in the Prosecution's public announcement, the appeal refers to
"the violation of provisions contained in the Criminal Proceedings Code of
Bosnia and Herzegovina" and "incorrect and incomplete factual
status." The State Prosecution charges Zdravko Mihaljevic, known as Pijuk,
as former member of "Ban Josip Jelacic" – the Second Battalion
of the Croatian Defense Council, HVO, and commander of "Maturice"
Special Purposes Squad, with having participated in the attack against, and the
murder and torture of civilians in Tulice village, in Kiseljak municipality, in
June 1993. The indictment alleges that Mihaljevic, in cooperation with two other
"Maturice" members, killed seven men by shooting from "an
automatic gun" on June 12, 1993 and shot one more person by "shooting
the person from a close distance."
On April 16 this year the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina
announced a first instance verdict against Mihaljevic, acquitting him of the
charges. Justifying its decision, the first instance Trial Chamber said that
"the Prosecution has not been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that
the indictee is guilty." "The Chamber considers the fact that Mihaljevic
participated in the crimes described in the indictment to be disputable.
However, we have clearly and undoubtedly determined, on the basis of the
statements given by witnesses and material evidence, that the crimes did
happen. We have determined with no doubt, that a broad and systematic attack
against Bosniaks was conducted in the Kiseljak, Busovaca and Vitez areas,"
the justification for the verdict alleged. The Appellate Chamber of the Court
of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall consider the appeal filed by the State
Prosecution and render a decision, to be announced at a later stage.
Stupar et al: Indictee testifies
BIRN Justice Report
June 19, 2008
One inductee testifies at the trial for the genocide in
Srebrenica.
Aleksandar Radovanovic, one of the nine indictees, who are
charged with the genocide in Srebrenica on July 13, 1995, testified as a
Defense witness and described the events, which happened in July 1995. The
Prosecution considers that Aleksandar Radovanovic, Milos Stupar, Milenko
Trifunovic, Brano Dzinic, Slobodan Jakovljevic, Velibor Maksimovic, Dragisa
Zivanovic and Branislav Medan, who were former members of the Second Special
Police Squad from Sekovici, and Milovan Matic, member of the Republika Srpska
Amry, participated in the shooting of more than 1,000 Srebrenica residents in
Kravica. Prior to the start of the testimony, Dragan Gotovac, the indictee's
Defense attorney, asked the Trial Chamber if one part of the examination could
be conducted with no public presence as those were "very sensitive
facts". "The inductee might say some things, evaluations or
statements about some people, which might not be benign in terms of the safety
of the indictee's family. In addition, the identity of a closed witness may be
disclosed," Gotovac said, explaining his request, which was approved by
the Trial Chamber.
In the course of the open part of the hearing, Radovanovic
said Rade Cuturic, known as Oficir, told him and other Special Police members
to "go in the direction of the yellow bridge" in Srebrenica on July
12, 1995. "It was said that some Muslim soldiers, who had not surrendered,
were in the woods. Oficir told us how to treat potential prisoners, if we
captured any in that area," Radovanovic said, adding that Cuturic was
commander of the Second Squad at that time. The Prosecution considers that
indictee Milos Stupar was commander of the Second Squad in July 1995.
Radovanovic said that, after arriving to the yellow bridge, he was supposed to
go "to Zvornik, to guard something," but, on his way to Zvornik, he
stopped in Sandici. The cross-examination conducted by the Prosecutor and other
Defense attorneys was open to the public. Answering other Defense attorney's
questions, Radovanovic said that Velibor Maksimovic and Dragisa Zivanovic
"did not go to the field" in Kravica and Sandici in July 1995. Brano
Dzinic and Branislav Medan were supposed to testify at this hearing as well.
However, their Defense teams informed the Court that they would like to
withdraw this proposal. At the next hearing, scheduled for July 3, indictee
Milenko Trifunovic is due to be examined.
[back to contents]
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (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)
UN at Fault if Tribunal Fails: Hun Sen
VOA Khmer
By Mean Veasna
June 11, 2008
Prime Minister Hun Sen called on the international community
to fund the Khmer Rouge tribunal during a time of financial crisis.
A failure of the tribunal due to the lack of funds will be
the responsibility of the UN, and the UN would lose its reputation, Hun Sen
told the English-language Mekong Times Wednesday.
"I call on the UN and those who promised to provide
money," he said. "Any failure of the court due to budget shortages is
not Cambodia's responsibility."
Hun Sen's comments "show how much interest and how much
support he gives to the court," tribunal spokesman Peter Foster said.
"It would be disappointing for everyone if funding did not come forward
and we were not able to proceed."
Tribunal administration officials are currently revising a
budget proposal in an effort to bring the amount they need from donors below
$114 million.
The tribunal was initially budgeted at $56 million, but
officials say they need more if the courts are complete trials for five jailed
Khmer Rouge leaders.
Tribunal officials will present a revised budget to donors
next week, Foster said.
Khmer Rouge victims given a voice in Cambodia trials
International Herald Tribune
By Seth Mydans
June 16, 2008
If Sok Chear had her way, she would slice the elderly man
into ribbons and pour salt into his wounds. She would beat him up and torture
him and give him electric shocks to make him talk.
For Ly Monysar, "Only killing them will make me feel
calm. I want them to suffer the way I suffered. I say this from the
heart."
Sok Chear, an office worker, and Ly Monysar, a security
guard, are two of the millions of Cambodians who suffered for four years in the
late 1970s under the brutal Communist Khmer Rouge, who caused the deaths of 1.7
million people.
Today, three decades later, five aging former Khmer Rouge
leaders have been arrested and are awaiting trial. And Sok Chear and Ly Monysar
have an innovative role to play in the tribunal, where the first case is expected
to get under way this autumn.
They are two of hundreds of people who have applied to the
court to be recognized officially as victims of the Khmer Rouge and to bring
parallel civil cases against them.
They will have the chance, not to beat and torture them but
to seek symbolic reparations - a monument, perhaps, or a museum or a trauma
center.
It is a controversial experiment in this unusual hybrid
tribunal, which is administered jointly by the United Nations and the Cambodian
government, cobbling together elements of both local and international law.
"For the first time in history the internal rules of a
tribunal will give victims of crimes the possibility to participate as
parties," said Gabriela González Rivas, deputy head of the tribunal's
victims unit.
Victims have been included in other comparable tribunals
like the International Court of Justice, but their role has been more limited.
As civil parties, the victims here will have standing
comparable to those of the accused, including the rights to participate in the
investigation, to be represented by a lawyer, to call witnesses and to question
the accused at trial, according to a court statement.
"Participation in these types of proceedings is a tool
of empowerment," Rivas said. "People can tell their story, feel that
what happened to them is a consideration, a recognizing that what happened to
them shouldn't have happened."
The inclusion of victims is part of the evolution and
refining of the mechanisms of international justice, said Diane Orentlicher,
special counsel of the Open Society Justice Initiative, in an interview by
telephone from New York.
"There has been a growing recognition, after 15 years
of international and hybrid courts like this one, not to exclude victims from
the justice that is being dispensed on their behalf," she said.
"This is one of the frontier issues in ongoing efforts
to improve ways in which war crimes trials are carried out."
The Cambodia tribunal has been criticized for compromising
international standards of justice with its awkward admixture of Cambodian law
and its vulnerability to manipulation by the country's strongman, Prime
Minister Hun Sen.
The participation of victims is drawing more criticism,
partly from people concerned for the rights of the accused and the preservation
of the presumption of innocence.
Victor Koppe, a defense attorney for one of the Khmer Rouge
leaders, called the presumption of innocence "the most fundamental
issue" in a case whose defendants have already found a place in history
books as the perpetrators of the killings.
"The question is whether or not everything in this
tribunal is institutionalized in such a way that only guilty verdicts can
come," he said.
Other critics say the court is being distracted by social
agendas from its core task of seeking justice for crimes against humanity.
"I would put this under the category of therapeutic
legalism," said Peter Maguire, a specialist in international justice and
author of "Facing Death in Cambodia."
"The task of an international criminal court is to
convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent," he said. "To ask more
of it than that is asking way too much of any criminal trial."
For many people, though, these related benefits are the main
purpose of the trials in a country that has never fully come to grips with its
tormented past.
The trials will offer a catharsis and a measure of healing,
they say, and will set a base line for an end to impunity in this still raw and
sometimes lawless country.
"This is an invention of the 1990s where people
freighted the trials with all this baggage," said Maguire. "How do
you measure closure, how do you measure truth, how do you measure
reconciliation? These are not empirical categories."
These added elements can also encumber an already tortuously
slow process, the critics say.
Almost two years of the tribunal's budgeted three-year
mandate have passed since it was set up in August 2006, after nearly a decade
of contentious negotiation between the United Nations and the Cambodian government.
Nearly a year has passed since the first of the five
defendants was charged in the case. A new budget has been submitted, and most
analysts are confident that more money will be found from international donors
to extend the life of the tribunal. But as Maguire put it, this court needs to
get hustling.
So far, Rivas said, her office is processing about 1,300
applications to participate from people who say they are victims. About half of
them seek to be civil parties, while the other half offer evidence that could
be submitted to prosecutors. Most names have been channeled through a
documentation center or through human rights groups.
Ten people have been accepted so far as civil parties, she
said.
As the number grows, it is likely that they will be combined
into class actions representing religious or ethnic groups, victims of
particular crimes or other parties.
Theary Seng, 37, a Cambodian-born American lawyer who lost
her parents to the Khmer Rouge, is organizing two groups of orphans - including
Sok Chear and Ly Monysar - to bring civil cases.
In February, Seng became the first - and so far the only -
victim to address the court, standing face to face with a man she blames for
the deaths of her parents.
Though her words were addressed to the court, she said, her
eyes were locked directly with those of the defendant, Nuon Chea, 81, the most
senior of the five imprisoned leaders - the man Sok Chear said she wanted to
flay.
In a short statement, Theary Seng contrasted the legal
protections that Nuon Chea is receiving with the arbitrary arrest and abuse she
said she and her younger brother suffered as children under the Khmer Rouge.
Nuon Chea, the Khmer Rouge ideologue, was sometimes known as
Brother No. 2 to Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge leader, who died in 1998.
"He was stoic, stoic," said Theary Seng, recalling
the confrontation. "He's completely stoic. Eighty percent of the time I
was addressing him in my statement. He didn't break the stare."
Nearly one-fourth of the Cambodian population died between
1975 and 1979 from execution, torture, starvation and overwork in the mass
labor brigades the Khmer Rouge created.
Today, though, most of the survivors are as stoic as their
victimizers. When asked about the tribunal, most simply say they want to know
who caused their suffering and why.
But the approach of the court sessions has aroused the
feelings of many people, and those who have applied to be counted as victims
are among those with the strongest emotions.
Sok Chear, 32, who said she was raped and brutalized as a
girl by the Khmer Rouge, remains inconsolable over the loss of her father, an
engineer, who disappeared into the hands of the black-clothed cadre and never
returned.
"We were always waiting for him to come home, but he
never came," she said. "We were always waiting and waiting. Even now,
I still look around. Maybe my father is still alive."
Tears still come when she talks about him.
"He gave me rice to eat, and I want to repay him,"
she said, "even one plate of rice, my gift to him, even one plate for him
to eat from his daughter."
Ly Monysar, 41, is a broken man, poor and sick and bitter,
his voice quavering as he tells of the loss of his entire family when he was a
boy of 9.
He sustains himself with fantasies of revenge every bit as chilling
as the calculated brutality of men like Nuon Chea.
"I want to kill all those people who did this to
me," he said.
"And if I can't, I'll come back in the next life and
find them. I'll create my own genocidal regime and take my revenge on them all."
Proof needed in genocide cases, says UN exec
Inquirer.net
By Robert Gonzaga
June 18, 2008
A top prosecutor in the genocide trials in Cambodia says
citing command responsibility "without proof of direct link" in the prosecution
of cases involving extrajudicial killings is unjust.
"It's easier to prosecute someone with blood on his hands
than the person who ordered, or perhaps more relevant to the context, the
person who let it happen," said Robert Petit of the United Nations Assistance
to the Khmer Rouge Trials (UNAKRT).
"You have to prove that the person is specifically
responsible in some way. Just holding a general responsible for the action of
subordinates if he had no way of knowing is just undermining the system," said
the UNAKRT prosecutor.
Petit addressed prosecutors, lawyers and human rights
workers during a two-day conference on the prosecution of crimes against
international human rights and international humanitarian law here. The
conference started on Monday at the Vista Marina Hotel.
The conference discussed issues that concerned human rights
workers, journalists and lawyers who, according to a participant, were targets
of atrocities most often suspected to be sanctioned by the state."
Petit, however, believed that without established links to
masterminds in government or the military, it was unjust to go after persons
in authority."
"I'm saying you have to have that proof. You prove that
every day [in court]. You prove that this person knew, or should have known,
but did not act to prevent [the crime] and did not act to sanction [the
perpetrator]," he said.
He said motives could be "very relevant" to sentencing
because "not all murders are equal and not all murderers are equal."
"But if you put motive as an element that the prosecution
must prove, for example, that you acted because you wanted to stifle dissent,
or you wanted to prevent prosecution of a political-based crime, or you wanted
to scare an activist, you are just making it hard for the prosecution," he
said.
Ibarra Gutierrez Jr., director of the University of the
Philippines' Law Center, sought to separate extrajudicial killings involving
human rights workers, journalists and legal professionals from ordinary
killings.
He said distinguishing extrajudicial killings from murder or
homicide would go beyond the definition of merely taking the life of a
particular victim. He said a political slaying was "actually more a violation
of certain state obligations or the rule of law."
Commission on Human Rights Chair Leila de Lima said the CHR
would continue to monitor compliance by the government of its obligation under
international treaties and instruments on human rights.
De Lima, who was appointed to lead the CHR in May, assured
the participants that the commission would be "independent, credible and
transparent."
Cambodia's genocide tribunal to get more Japan funding
Radio Australia
June 18, 2008
Japan has agreed to donate nearly $US3 million to Cambodia's
genocide tribunal as it prepares to bring former Khmer Rouge leaders to trial.
A spokeswoman says the funding will go to the operations of the United Nations-backed
court's administration office.
Court officials are also in New York this week seeking some $US100 million so
the tribunal can continue operations.
They are set to meet potential donors on Friday.
Japan has already contributed more than $US21 million to the tribunal.
The radical Maoist Khmer Rouge regime, which ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979,
is blamed for the deaths of up to two million people by execution, starvation
and excessive work.
[back to contents]
Darfur, Sudan (ICC)
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Darfur, Sudan
ICC Prosecutor discusses Sudanese Govt war crimes
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
By Leigh Sales
June 6, 2008
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC),
Luis Moreno-Ocampo joins Lateline to discuss the courts attempt to prosecute
members of the Sudanese Government for war crimes.
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: And earlier I was joined from The
Hague by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis
Moreno-Ocampo.
Mr Prosecutor, you told the United Nations last week that the entire Darfur
region was a crime scene. Can you paint the picture for us? What are the types
of crimes of which you've been able to gather hard evidence?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO, PROSECUTOR, ICC: Now we are conducting a second
investigation into Darfur and we've found there are still Government forces
integrated with militias Janjaweed attacking villages. They happen now - May.
There are fewer villages attacked then before because there are a few village
who remain inhabited by these people, because in 2003-2004 there were many
attacks, now less attacks, but the pattern is the same. Armed forces surround
the village and Janjaweed militias attack the citizens and armoured civilians,
raping women, killing men, pillaging and forcing them to leave the city -
that's happening now. And in other cases, take their aeroplanes, bombing
schools - that happen in May. In relation to this, the same people who are in
the camps are also under attack in different ways. When they leave the camps,
women are raped, men are killed and inside the camps they are attacked,
especially the leaders and the teachers are targeted, arrested, tortured. In
relation to that, we have evidence of how the land of these people is usurpated
avoiding that they come back to the places. And so people are attacked in the
camps, attacked in the village, can not go back to the land. No ...
LEIGH SALES: How does this compare to what you saw in the first case you were
investigating? Is the level of violence better or worse?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: It's different, because in the first case we just saw the
attacks against the village, 2003-2004. So, we saw when they attacked the
villages and people were removed and the rationale was they were trying to
isolate the rebels. But the new thing is, people removed and forced into camps
and now attacking the camps. And that is different. It's not just they were
attacking illegally in their own homes. Now they're removed, put in camps and
they are attacking the camps and they can not go back. And that is the new
scenario. And, in addition, we see also evidence of the cover up. It's a
deliberate intent to cover up the crimes, because they are using the State to
commit the crimes, they had to promise impunity and then no one is prosecuted
in Sudan. No one is fired. On the contrary, the people who are involved in the
crimes are promoted. Haroon, the Minister for the Interior who coordinated
attacks in 2003-2004 is now the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs in charge of
the people in the camps. So, he's in charge of the same victims he displace and
he's attacking these people in the camps. And that is our second case.
LEIGH SALES: You mentioned that there seems to be a coordination of the
violence between the Government and militias, that there's State apparatus in
use, that there's a cover up. Who is actually ultimately responsible? Who is
directing this? Does it go to the very top levels of Government?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: I'm limited in my evidence. I'm doing criminal - I have to
identify criminal responsibility. So, I am putting all this information
together and we are discussing the case. The policy is to identify who is the
most responsible and they are limited in their evidence. So, I will present my
case to the judges in July.
LEIGH SALES: And at that point, will you be prosecuting particular individuals
that you claim are directing these campaigns of violence?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: That's the point. The point is these crimes are committed -
it's not a crime committed by a person using a gun. Here, the gun is the State.
They are using the State apparatus and integrating Janjaweed militias to attack
the civilians. And that is a problem for the citizens in Darfur: those that
have to protect them are attacking them. Imagine if in Sydney, the police
attack the citizens. So, what you can do? That is a problem. That's why they
need international community to protect them.
LEIGH SALES: Can you give us a sense of the scale of your investigation? How do
you even begin on a case of this size?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: Oh yeah, it's very interesting. We have to identify is
massive attacks or massive numbers of criminals involved. So, we start with the
documents collected by the UN Commission of Inquiry. We also collect documents
from the Government of the Sudan who provide us their own information and then
we start to identify witness. We can not go to Darfur to investigate, because
we can not protect people in Darfur. So, what I did is, I collect witness,
identify witness in the world. I identify 600 witnesses; finally we decide to
take 100 testimonies and we took them in 18 countries. So, we conduct the
investigation in the world and we identify 100 people who are victims in Darfur
and now are in different places escaping from the region. So, we identify them,
collect information. And the first case we can prove very, very, in relation to
Haroon, in a very interesting way. We have eyewitness who saw Haroon delivering
weapons in his own helicopter in three different places. We have eyewitness who
saw Haroon paying Janjaweed militias to integrate in the forces. We saw - we
have eyewitness who saw Haroon inciting Janjaweed militia leaders to attack the
civilians, including Ali Kushayb, and then we have eyewitness who saw Ali
Kushayb commanding four different attacks. So, in addition to documents, we
have a very interesting eyewitness proving the criminal responsibility of these
two persons. And now we're trying to define with the new evidence we collected
who is the most responsible for this massive attack against the civilian
population in Darfur for the last five years.
LEIGH SALES: So, you have to rely on witnesses who are no longer in Darfur. Is
that because if you took testimony from people still inside the country they
would be at too much of a risk?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: They would be attacked, yes, absolutely. I have a duty to
protect the witness, so, for me, interviewing the witness is the beginning of
the relations. So, and I cannot protect the witness inside Darfur, inside the
Sudan. So that's why I choose witness around the world.
LEIGH SALES: And what sort of protection do you offer to people who are going
to be witnesses or testifying in this case for you?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: Depends on the circumstances, but normally it's
confidential information. We like to protect them, so we don't like to tell how
we're doing it. But, right now, after four years of investigating massive
ongoing crimes in different parts of the world, we have no witness attacked and
that we are very proud that we can protect each of them.
LEIGH SALES: It's now nearly six months since part of a UN peacekeeping force
arrived in Darfur. Based on the evidence that you're seeing, has the presence
of these peacekeepers made any difference to the level of violence?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: That's one of the issues that we - humanitarian aid is
critically important in Darfur. Without the humanitarian assistance provided by
UN and different NGOs, 2.5 million people will die. So, this is so dramatic.
Security is key. Peacekeepers do have a critical role. But the problem is, we
have to remove people at Haroon. Haroon cannot be in charge of his victims. If
not, would never be enough peacekeepers. I use example, look, you have fire,
you have to remove the arsonist. If not, will never be enough firefighters. So,
it's not just the number of firefighters. If the arsonists remain in charge of
the problem, the fire will continue and that's the problem with the impunity.
Impunity is not an empty concept. When we define Haroon is a person who has
commit serious crimes according to the evidence, this is serious information
and has to be taken into consideration and has to be removed from the position.
LEIGH SALES: But when you talk about Haroon being responsible for most of these
crimes and then now he's the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, isn't the
Sudanese Government simply making a mockery of this entire process?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: That for me - is the lack of arrest of Haroon is in this
year someone higher than him is giving introduction and support, is more.
Haroon is also appointed to be the leader of the investigation of human right
abuses in the Sudan. And that for me, is a way to ensure those - because
basically, when you use state apparatus to commit crimes, you have to promise
impunity, because you are forcing public servants to do illegal acts. So, you
have to promise impunity. And when you appoint Haroon, a person charged with 50
counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes as the lead to mitigate human
rights abuses in Sudan, then, the message is, "Don't worry: no one will be
mitigated." And for me, this ??? this year of someone higher than Haroon
committing the crimes and covering up the crimes.
LEIGH SALES: So, given that, is there anything the international community can
do to persuade the Sudanese Government to arrest Haroon and also the other
individual who was identified as a war criminal in your first case?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: I think in this, we are much better now. In the last
meeting last week, Security Council visit Khartoum and inform them they need to
comply with the Security Council resolution and the court decision, but the
Government informed they are not going to comply. So, that is an open challenge
to the Security Council's authority and that's something the Security Council
has to deal with.
LEIGH SALES: And, what are the options available to the Security Council?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: Ask the Security Council. I have my duties on mandate. I
can not be involved in this conversation. But, they are the maximum authority.
Basically, they have to force the Sudan to respect the law. Sudan is a member
of the UN system; Sudan is a member of the international community; it's a big
country - they have to respect the law.
LEIGH SALES: From the evidence that you were seeing, do you believe it's time
for a large scale military intervention in Darfur, possibly under the auspices
of NATO?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: No, I don't think so. We never request military
interventions. We believe that Sudan has the responsibility to manage the
conflict. The have the responsibility to arrest Haroon. That's why it's very
important to put this in the top of the agenda. In any negotiation with Sudan,
this issue can not disappear. And for a long time, for one year, the issue of
Haroon was not on the agenda. Now is an agenda. That's important. So, I think
we have to be consistent and request the respect for the law and they have to
secure their warrant. That would be a solution.
LEIGH SALES: Does the lack of compliance by the Sudanese Government illustrate
that, to a degree, the International Criminal Court is powerless?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: I don't think it's powerless. On the contrary, we just
arrest a person in Baju. It's basically, show the difficult task we have. And
of course this case in which we are indicting a Minister who is serving in
government is probably one of the most difficult tasks, but what are the
options? The option before that was just wars and then, we don't like a war. We
like just a legal operation. We have to arrest Haroon. That's the only
activity. That way it's a new tool. But, of course, it has to be - is
difficult? Yes. Is useless? No, on the contrary. We can not hide the crimes.
That's the point. There's a cover up of the crimes - the prosecutor's office
can not be part of the cover up. The international community should not be part
of the cover up. How to solve the problem? It's a different question.
Difficult.
LEIGH SALES: It seems like every time the world sees a mass atrocity, vows are
made that it will never be allowed to happen again. And yet, here we are. How
can that be?
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: That's a point: many times, humanity say, "Never
again." Now, it tends to put wars in operation. We have new tools. We have
the International Criminal Court working - doing the crimes - and that's why
it's an opportunity. Of course, then, you have to be creative in how you make a
political solution for the problem. The issue - we need political solution, but
has to be inside the law. This happen in different countries. It happen in
Spain today, happened in the bus in Ireland, happened in Colombia today. So
there are many cases in which you have negotiations - political negotiations -
inside the law and that is a new scenario in international relations, because
the International Criminal Court exists.
LEIGH SALES: Luis Moreno-Ocampo, I'll look forward to the day where we won't
need to have you on a program like this, because we wouldn't have these
problems in the world. But thank you for making time to join Lateline.
LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: Thank you very much.
ICC counsel condemns plans to divert plane carrying Darfur
suspect
Sudan Tribune
By Wasil Ali
June 16, 2008
(WASHINGTON) – One of the registered counsels at the
International Criminal Court (ICC) described an attempt by the world court to
divert a plane carrying a Darfur war crimes suspect as "illegal".
The French-Libyan born counsel Dr. Hadi Shalluf told Sudan
Tribune in a phone interview that diverting planes "is a violation of
international law because of the negative impact it has on civil aviation".
"Even if it was done for the purpose of applying the law it
is still considered a criminal act" he added.
Earlier this month the ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo
told Sudan Tribune that the world court attempted to divert a plane that
carried Ahmed Haroun, state minister for humanitarian affairs, on his way to Saudi
Arabia in December to perform the annual Islamic pilgrimage.
The plan was coordinated with a number of unidentified
countries. The Saudi government was made aware of it, according to Ocampo.
Shalluf said that he is "very surprised that the court would
to resort to something disgraceful and immoral like this. I condemn this act".
He said that the operation would have been legal only if the
place landed at its destination and then the ICC could have asked for
extradition of Haroun. But he stressed that only a State Party to the ICC is
obliged to comply with such a request.
The ICC counsel also said that countries which were part of
the plan "are in violation of civil aviation treaties signed in Montreal and
New York and any other international conventions regarding safety of
passengers".
"The court's mandate does not include arresting suspects
directly. The ICC can ask countries to execute arrest warrants in accordance
with Rome Statue. Otherwise the court becomes a hijacking institution and a
police institution" Shalluf said.
The French advocate said his position would have still been
the same if the plane was carrying Slobodan Milosevic or Radovan Karadzic.
He further said the plan if successful would have created a
"regional conflict and even war" between Sudan and the countries that were
enlisted for help in this operation.
"The ICC and its prosecutor bear the full responsibility for
this and the UNSC must investigate how that was allowed to happen" he said.
SPECIAL COURT FOR DARFUR
Shalluf reiterated his position that the ICC has no
jurisdiction over the Darfur war crimes saying that Sudan is not party to the
Rome Statue which forms the basis of the court.
Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statue, but the (UNSC)
invoked the provisions under the Statue in March 2005 that enables it to refer
situations in non-State parties to the world court if it deems that it is a
threat to international peace and security.
But Shalluf disputes this interpretation saying that the
UNSC can refer cases of countries that are parties to the Rome Statue. He
proposed a special court for Darfur crimes consisting of Sudanese judges and
submitted it to the P-5 members of the UNSC as well as the UN Secretary General
Ban Ki-Moon.
Asked whether the special court proposal is irrelevant after
the report by the ICC prosecutor to the UNSC in which accused the Sudanese
state apparatus of covering up the crimes committed in Darfur, Shalluf
described Ocampo as being "out of touch with reality".
"The prosecutor does not deal with the Darfur case realistically.
He lives in his own bubble in isolation from the international community. He
does not understand the true structure of the African continent or Sudan" he
said.
"It is not for his place to question the Sudanese judiciary
or any other person for that matter. Sudan is a sovereign state and recognized
by the whole world. Sudan judicial system is independent and fair" Shalluf
added.
Shalluf said his proposal is based on his belief that the
Darfur case is "too complicated to be handled by the ICC".
"We asked for the formation of a special court based in
Sudan or any other African countries" he said.
Nigeria has made a similar suggestion on a special court
when the issue of the ICC and Darfur came up in the UNSC in 2005 but it lacked
support from Europe and Sudan itself.
Shalluf also blamed the Sudanese government "for failing to
deal with the issue of Darfur crimes. This why we saw what happened with the
attack by Darfur rebels on the capital".
However the ICC counsel acknowledged that he has not received
any response from the P-5 or UN on his proposal.
"Definitely I don't expect acceptance to this proposal for
the time being. However I am positive that it is being reviewed. The UNSC
referring the Darfur case to the ICC should be voided" Shalluf said.
CASE AGAINST THE ICC
Shalluf was appointed by the court on August 2006 to
represent and protect the general interests of the defense in the Darfur case
before the ICC during the proceedings on the preservation of evidence and
protection of witnesses.
The judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC who were
assigned the Darfur case, invited the observations of Antonio Cassese the head
of UN commission of inquiry on Darfur and by Louise Arbour the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the protection of victims and the
preservation of evidence in Darfur.
Shalluf filed a long series of motions to challenge the
jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Darfur case at the ICC
that were eventually rejected by the judges.
The ICC registry also refused to compensate him for his
legal services from December 2006 to February 2007 on the grounds that he
exceeded the scope of his mandate. The judges said he presented baseless
requests and motions. Furthermore they described the filings made to challenge
the jurisdiction of the ICC in Darfur as "frivolous and vexatious".
Shalluf filed a complaint with European court of Human
rights against the ICC and the European parties to the Rome Statue saying that
he was denied the right to appeal the judges decision on his compensation.
"This is violation of European law which states that any
person should be entitled for a fair trial. The right to appeal is cornerstone
of a fair trial. The Rome Statue is incomplete since it empowers the ICC
chambers to review appeal requests on cases they already rejected" he said.
"You don't expect the same court that denied a motion to
accept a decision to appeal. This is a serious defect in the Rome Statue" he
said.
Shalluf said the case is still pending before the European
court.
The judges of the ICC issued their first arrest warrants for
suspects accused of war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region a year ago.
The warrants were issued for Ahmed Haroun, state minister
for humanitarian affairs, and militia commander Ali Mohamed Ali Abdel-Rahman,
also know as Ali Kushayb. Sudan has so far rejected handing over the two
suspects.
At UN, Changes to Council's Sudan Statement, French Words
for Chad But Not Lubanga
Matthew Russell Lee
16 June 2008
On Darfur, the Security Council on Monday unanimously passed
a Presidential Statement urging "the Government of Sudan and all other
parties to the conflict in Darfur to cooperate fully with the [International
Criminal] Court, consistent with Resolution 1593 (2005), in order to put an end
to impunity for the crimes committed in Darfur." An earlier version had
concluded, "as required by Resolution 1593 (2005), including in respect of
the arrest warrants."
The deletion of the reference to the arrest warrants for
Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb, according to Inner City Press' sources in the
Council, came at the demand of Libya. These sources say that Libya was opposing
the whole Presidential Statement, until sponsor Costa Rica threatened to turn
it into a formal resolution, which does not require unanimity and would, in
this view, have isolated Libya as not even calling for compliance with previous
Council resolutions.
Costa Rican Ambassador Jorge Urbina was asked to respond to
the characterization of his country, by Sudan's Ambassador to the UN, as a
"banana republic." Amb. Urbina said that while he had not come to
criticize any other member state, in the Human Development Index Costa Rica is
48th, while Sudan is 147th, reflecting each country's respect for international
law. But that's not what the Index measures... Meanwhile on neighboring Chad,
where rebels took over the eastern town visited by Council Ambassadors and
Inner City Press last week, Goz Beida, France rushed through a Presidential
Statement calling on soldiers, peacekeepers and police to "put an end to
the activities of armed groups in the region." Afterwards, Inner City
Press asked French Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert to respond to reports that
the Justice and Equality Movement, described as a Darfur rebel group, has been
called into service of defending Chadian president Idriss Deby Itno. Amb.
Ripert did not respond to that.
When Inner City Press asked if France believes that Sudan is
behind this most recent rebel move in Chad, Ripert said you have only to look
where they came from, that is, from Sudan. While it seemed he was saying that
the rebels had turned back, upon follow-up questioning he said that the rebels
have turned north and east. We'll see.
Footnote: The International Criminal Court, which received
support from the Council's Presidential Statement on Monday, is also in
disarray, as the case against Congolese rebel Thomas Lubanga for, among other
things, recruiting child soldiers has fallen apart. Prosecutor Luis Moreno
Ocampo failure to turn over discovery and potentially exculpatory material to
Lubanga and his lawyers; the case has been suspended and on June 24 Lubanga may
be released. Inner City Press asked Costa Rica Ambassador Jorge Urbina, given
his country's interest in the ICC, to comment, but he said he had only come to
the stakeout to speak about the Presidential Statement.
Inner City Press asked Ambassador Ripert of France to
comment on the freezing and prospective dropping of the child soldier
recruitment charges against Lubanga. Ripert said he would not comment on
"judicial subjects." He looked, several reporters noted, sick or
tired or both. Here's hoping for a new era of openness.
ICC secures support for Darfur investigations from UN &
EU
Sudan Tribune
June 17, 2008
The International Criminal Court (ICC)
received a boost today from the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the European
Union (EU) who issued formal statements voicing support for the work of court in Darfur.
The UNSC unexpectedly reached a unanimous agreement this
morning on a presidential statement introduced by Costa Rica calling on Sudan
to "fully cooperate" with the ICC.
The statement read by the UNSC president for June, the US
envoy at the UN Zalmay Khalilzad, urged "the Government of Sudan and all other
parties to the conflict in Darfur to cooperate fully with the Court, consistent
with resolution 1593 (2005), in order to put an end to impunity for the crimes
committed in Darfur".
Libya, a non-permanent member at the UNSC refused to endorse
the statement unless the text was watered down to support an "end to
impunity" instead of explicitly demanding compliance with ICC arrest
warrants, council diplomats told Reuters.
It was also reported that Costa Rica threatened to table the
text as a resolution which does not require unanimous approval by UNSC members.
The statement represents a political setback to the Sudanese
government which appeared confident that the UNSC could not reach consensus on
the text. A previous attempt to adopt a similar statement in December 2007 was
blocked by China, Russia and Qatar.
Last week Sudanese UN ambassador Abdel-Mahmood Abdel-Haleem
told the daily Al-Rayaam that the presidential statement failed to see the
light after six UN Security Council (UNSC) countries objected to it.
The Sudanese official said that the countries including
China, Russia, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Libya and Indonesia argued that the
statement "will spoil the peace efforts in Darfur".
Diplomats also told Reuters that China supported the
statement on Sudan to avoid drawing more unnecessary attention to its close
ties with Sudan ahead of the Beijing Olympics.
Abdel-Haleem told Reuters by telephone from Khartoum that
the council statement had not changed his country's position on the ICC.
"There is no way we are going to hand over
anybody," he said, adding that the Sudanese judicial system was capable of
bringing any Sudanese war criminals to justice.
The EU foreign ministers also concurrently issued a stronger
statement threatening sanctions against Sudanese officials obstructing
cooperation with the ICC.
"The [EU council stands ready to consider measures
against individuals responsible for not-cooperating with the ICC should they
continue to disregard their obligations under a U.N. resolution" ministers said
in a statement agreed on Monday.
The ministers stopped short of giving instructions to EU
experts to draw up sanctions that could be imposed, after France and Spain
argued a step-by-step approach, EU diplomats said.
'SIGNAL OF IMPATIENCE'
Human Rights Watch (HRW) was quick in welcoming the adoption
of the UNSC presidential statement saying it "signals international
impatience with impunity for Darfur war crimes suspects".
"The unanimous Security Council statement sends the message
that Khartoum cannot obstruct justice by recycling unkept promises to accept
peacekeepers," Richard Dicker, director of HRW International Justice Program
said in a statement today
"Sudan must take real action on both justice and
peacekeeping" he added.
Dicker also applauded Costa Rica for providing "invaluable
leadership" and also commended the US for backing the presidential statement.
"We also welcome the role played by the US government as
Security Council president. This support for justice marks a further break from
Washington's previously ill-conceived and highly ideological opposition to the
ICC" he added.
The US came close to vetoing resolution 1593 referring the
Darfur case to the ICC but bent down to domestic pressure as well as the
European bloc at the UNSC. Washington has recently showed signs of warming up
to the court despite its long standing fears that it may be used to bring
frivolous cases against its troops deployed worldwide.
However Khalilzad rejected the notion of a shift in US
policy towards the ICC.
"Our policy in general with regards to the ICC is well
known. There is no change. With regards to Darfur we have supported the PRSC
[presidential statement] but that's no reflection in terms of our overall
approach to the ICC" the US envoy told reporters.
The statements by UNSC and EU come weeks before the ICC
prosecutor is due to present evidence on a new case to the judges.
"The Office anticipates that it will be able to present
a new application under Article 58 of the Statute to the Judges by July
2008" the prosecutor said in his report to the UNSC earlier this month.
In his report to the UNSC, Ocampo made his harshest
condemnation of Khartoum saying that he collected evidence of a "criminal plan
based on the mobilization of the whole state apparatus, including the armed
forces, the intelligence services, the diplomatic and public information
bureaucracies, and the justice system".
The judges of the ICC issued their first arrest warrants for
suspects accused of war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region a year ago.
The warrants were issued for Ahmed Haroun, state minister
for humanitarian affairs, and militia commander Ali Mohamed Ali Abdel-Rahman,
also know as Ali Kushayb. Sudan has so far rejected handing over the two
suspects.
Ocampo said that his office is investigating who "is
maintaining Haroun in a position to commit crimes; who is instructing him and
others".
The statements by Ocampo were taken to suggest that he is
going after senior Sudanese officials.
Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statue, but the UN Security
Council (UNSC) invoked the provisions under the Statue that enables it to refer
situations in non-State parties to the world court if it deems that it is a
threat to international peace and security.
ICC says arrest of Darfur suspects is responsibility of
states
Sudan Tribune
June 17, 2008
The International Criminal Court (ICC)
said today that the responsibility for arresting Darfur war crimes suspects
lies with the states.
Earlier this month the ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo
told Sudan Tribune that the world court attempted to divert a plane that
carried Ahmed Haroun, state minister for humanitarian affairs, on his way to
Saudi Arabia in December to perform the annual Islamic pilgrimage.
"The ICC does not have a police force to execute arrest
warrants. We rely on countries to help us on that" an ICC official told Sudan
Tribune on condition of anonymity.
The disclosure of the arrest attempt angered the Sudanese
government which described Ocampo as a "terrorist" and demanded that he be
removed from office.
Sudan's envoy to the UN Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Mahmood todl
Reuters that it was especially infuriating that other countries were willing to
help the ICC in the failed operation.
Some legal experts including Hadi Shalluf, an ICC registered
counsel, questioned the legality of the plane diversion and condemned the
countries involved.
Ocampo said that Saudi Arabia was made aware of the plan to
arrest Haroun.
The official declined to the name the countries involved,
but added that states attempting to arrest ICC suspects "are expected to
conduct arrest operations legitimately and legally in a manner compatible with
international law and compatible with support for an independent, judicial
institution".
The statements by the ICC official suggest that the
countries involved were the ones who determined that diverting the plane was
the ideal way to nab the Sudanese minister.
The judges of the ICC issued their first arrest warrants for
suspects accused of war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region a year ago.
The warrants were issued for Ahmed Haroun, state minister
for humanitarian affairs, and militia commander Ali Mohamed Ali Abdel-Rahman,
also know as Ali Kushayb. Sudan has so far rejected handing over the two
suspects.
Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statue, but the UN Security
Council (UNSC) invoked the provisions under the Statue that enables it to refer
situations in non-State parties to the world court if it deems that it is a
threat to international peace and security.
[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's first-ever war crimes trial delayed
AFP
Jun 11, 2008
THE HAGUE (AFP) — The International Criminal Court
announced Wednesday that its first-ever war crimes trial, involving former
Congolese militia chief Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, will no longer open on June 23.
"During a public hearing held on 11 June 2008,
Trial-Chamber I announced that the trial in the Lubanga case will not start on
23 June 2008, as previously scheduled," said a statement from the court,
without giving a reason or a new starting date.
Approached for detail, a spokeswoman cited only
"procedural reasons," saying that the judges will explain their
decision in writing within the next week.
A lawyer for the accused, Jean-Marie Biju-Duval, had asked
Tuesday that the trial be declared "impossible" following a dispute
over disclosure of certain pieces of evidence.
He had complained that the prosecutor had not given the
defence letters produced by the United Nations, and that they were to be
provided only to the bench, in the absence of the defence.
Lubanga, 47, is accused of abducting minors under 15 and
using child soldiers in attacks by the armed wing of his Union of Congolese
Patriots between September 2002 and August 2003 in the war-torn Democratic
Republic of Congo.
According to humanitarian non-governmental organisations,
inter-ethnic fighting and violence involving militias in the country's Ituri
province -- centred on control over one of the most lucrative gold-mining
territories in the world -- lies behind some 60,000 deaths going back to 1999.
The conflict has also created tens of thousands of refugees,
they say.
Lubanga's trial would be the first before the ICC, set up
six years ago as a worldwide permanent court mandated to try war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide.
Since the court took up its functions, it has opened four
investigations into crimes committed in DR Congo, Uganda, Sudan and Central
African Republic, issuing 10 arrest warrants.
For DR Congo, the ICC has issued three arrest warrants and
currently has three Congolese war crimes suspects in custody.
Lubanga was transferred to the court in March 2006. Two of
his rival warlords, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, arrived at the
ICC detention unit in October 2007 and February 2008 respectively.
The prosecutor accuses the three men of crimes committed in
the mineral rich Ituri region of DR Congo.
Ituri was wracked by ethnic bloodshed between the Hema and
Lendu peoples from 1999 and embroiled in a broader rebel war that raged in the
DR Congo between 1998 and 2003, drawing in more than half a dozen African
armies.
The trial in the case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo will not start
on 23 June 2008
International Criminal Court Press Release
June 11, 2008
ICC-CPI-20080611-PR322-ENG
Situation: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Case: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
During a public hearing held on 11 June 2008, Trial-Chamber
I announced that the trial in the Lubanga case will not start on 23 June 2008,
as previously scheduled. A written decision will be handed down by the judges
within the next seven days.
Background information
On 17 March 2006, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the founder and
leader of the Union des patriotes congolais (Union of Congolese Patriots) was
arrested and surrendered to the Court upon a warrant of arrest issued by
Pre-Trial Chamber I at the request of the Prosecutor.
On 29 January 2007, Pre-Trial Chamber I confirmed the
charges brought by the Prosecutor against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, namely war
crimes consisting of conscripting and enlisting children under the age of 15
into the FPLC, the military wing of the Union des patriotes congolais (UPC),
and using them to participate actively in hostilities in Ituri, from September
2002 to 13 August 2003.
The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is the first case to
arise from the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC); the
second case is The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui,
and the third case is The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda. Investigations are
ongoing in the DRC.
War crimes court reprimands prosecutor, will consider
release of ex-Congo warlord
Associated Press via PR-Inside
June 16, 2008
A war crimes tribunal
reprimanded prosecutors on Monday for withholding evidence vital to the defense
of a former Congolese warlord charged with recruiting child soldiers, and said
it will consider next week whether to release him.
The ruling opened the prospect that the first case to come
before the International Criminal
Court will be thrown out before coming to trial, and could
raise barriers for future cases in gathering information on potential war
crimes suspects.
Thomas Lubanga, head of the Union of Congolese Patriots, is
charged with recruiting, conscripting and sending children into battle in the
Congo in 2002-2003.
After a tense hearing last week, the judges said they feared
Lubanga would be denied justice, and indefinitely postponed the scheduled June
23 start of his trial.
Announcing their reasoning Monday, the judges said "the
trial process has been ruptured to such a degree that it is now impossible to
piece together the constituent elements of a fair trial."
It said it will convene a hearing June 24 for arguments on
whether Lubanga should be freed and the case against him halted.
The court said the prosecution had refused to disclose
evidence that could help establish Lubanga's innocence or mitigate his guilt,
and had declined to give classified documents to the court so that the judges
could decide whether they were critical for the defense.
The documents had been provided by the United Nations and
other organizations on condition they remain confidential.
The prosecution is allowed to use material gained on a
confidential basis only for the purpose of generating evidence than can be used
in court. The judges found, however, the prosecution had intended to use secret
information in the trial, and that was an abuse of the confidentiality
agreements.
Prosecutors acknowledged they were withholding more than 200
documents. Among them, 95 contained potential exculpatory information that
would be beneficial to the defense case.
The judges ruled the prosecution had made "inappropriate use
of confidentiality agreements."
In a 44-page ruling, they complained that the United Nations
had rejected appeals to allow the court to review the documents, and that they
did not even know which other organizations provided information to the prosecutors.
Confidentiality agreements are accepted in international law
to protect U.N. personnel and aid workers for non-governmental organizations
who often are in the middle of precarious conflict situations. Confidential
material cannot be used against the defendant on its own.
But the court said the prosecution had gathered material "under the cloak of confidentiality" to identify evidence they would use in the
trial, which they said was illegal.
"The choices for the prosecution are clear and stark. Either
it must disclose all the potentially exculpatory evidence in its possession to
the accused, or it will chose not to do so because of the improper agreements
it has reached with information providers," the ruling said.
The judges said their ruling was issued "with great
reluctance," especially if the trial is canceled and they are unable to issue a
verdict on issues "of significance to the international community."
Lubanga's case is the first to deal exclusively with the use
of child soldiers. He is accused of sending hundreds of children under age 15
to fight in the wars in Congo's eastern Ituri region.
Lubanga was arrested in March 2006, the first suspect to
come into the custody of the International Criminal Court which became
operational in 2002.
The ICC is an independent court, financed by the countries
which ratified the 1998 Rome Statute that created it. The United States has
refused to sign the treaty.
Trial of Congolese warlord may be thrown out of
International Criminal Court
International Herald Tribune
By Marlise Simons
June 16, 2008
Judges at the International Criminal Court in The Hague
warned that they may throw out the very first case at the new tribunal because
they believe a fair trial may no longer be possible, the court said on Monday.
The judges added that they would discuss next week whether
to release Thomas Lubanga, a former Congolese warlord who has been charged with
recruiting child soldiers during the militia violence in the Ituri region of
the Congo in 2002-2003.
Lubanga's long-awaited trial was due to begin on June 23 and
prosecutors had hoped to use the case to highlight the widespread practice of
pressing young boys and girls into African wars, where they were often drugged
and used as killers, messengers, cooks and sex slaves.
But the case against Lubanga, who arrived at the court's
prison in The Hague in March 2006, has been delayed several times by procedural
problems, including disagreements between prosecutors and judges.
On Friday, after a tense hearing, the judges ordered all
proceedings stopped. In their ruling, which was released on Monday, the judges
said that the prosecution had withheld "significant" exculpatory
evidence from the defense. As a result, they wrote, "the trial process has
been ruptured to such a degree that it is now impossible to piece together the
constituent elements of a fair trial."
At issue are more than 200 documents, provided by the United
Nations and others, on condition that they be kept confidential. Such secret
information can be used by the prosecution only to generate new evidence, the
court said, and not as part of the evidence at trial.
The judges reprimanded prosecutors for "misuse" of
the material, saying they planned to use "confidential" information
in the trial, which was illegal, and it should have been disclosed to Lubanga
and his lawyers, as well as the court.
In a 44-page ruling, the judges complained that the United
Nations had rejected requests for the court to be able to review the documents
and added that further classified material was being used from other unknown
sources.
The judges said they issued their ruling "with great
reluctance," particularly if this meant canceling the trial which involved
issues "of significance to the international community."
Lubanga's lawyers could not immediately be reached. If the
accused is released, he will have spent three years in custody. He was arrested
in Congo in 2005 and held there for one year before being sent to The Hague.
Suspended DRCongo war crimes trial 'not finished': cler
AFP
June 17, 2008
KINSHASA (AFP) — The suspension of war crime
proceedings against former Democratic Republic of Congo militia chief Thomas
Lubanga Dyilo "does not mean the end of the matter," a court official
said here Tuesday.
"The procedure is not finished. It has been suspended
for technical reasons, valid reasons," said Clerk of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) Silvana Arbia, adding that the decision indicated the
importance accorded to the rights of the defence.
Lubanga is accused of abducting minors under 15 and using
child soldiers in attacks by the armed wing of his Union of Congolese Patriots
between September 2002 and August 2003 in the war-torn DR Congo.
His trial had been due to start on June 23. On June 11,
however, the ICC said it was postponing the opening of the case with a lawyer
for the accused asking that the trial be declared "impossible" due to
a dispute over disclosure of certain pieces of evidence.
Two days later, the judges said they were placing a
moratorium on proceedings.
Arbia added that she hoped that a solution to the legal
problems in the case would be found.
If the proceedings were suspended permanently, however, she
said the ICC would see that it looked at how to compensate victims.
The court has said that it will decide on June 24 whether
Lubanga should be freed.
According to humanitarian NGOs, inter-ethnic fighting and
violence involving militias in the country's Ituri province -- centred on
control over one of the most lucrative gold-mining territories in the world --
lies behind some 60,000 deaths going back to 1999.
The conflict has also created tens of thousands of refugees,
they say.
Registrar's first visit to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo
International Criminal Court Press Release
June 17, 2008
ICC-CPI-20080617-PR326-ENG
The Registrar of the International Criminal Court, Ms
Silvana Arbia, has been visiting the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 15
June 2008. This is her first mission to the country since taking up office in
April.
On this occasion, Ms Arbia met with a number of high-ranking
Congolese officials including the President of the National Assembly, ministers
and representatives of both the military and civilian judicial authorities. She
thanked them for the DRC's cooperation to date and voiced her desire for the
prompt execution of all of the Court's requests for cooperation in the
interests of justice.
In executing arrest warrants issued by the Court, the
Congolese authorities have already surrendered three suspects: Thomas Lubanga
Dyilo, Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. Ms Arbia also expressed the
hope that the legislation implementing the Rome Statute will soon be adopted by
the Congolese parliament. In her view, this will help to bolster the domestic
legal system, so that it can deal with international crimes.
For their part, the Congolese authorities stated their
willingness to continue cooperating with the ICC "for the good of humanity but
above all for the good of the Congolese nation".
As Ms Arbia is also responsible for the ICC field offices,
she had a working meeting with all of the Court's field staff. "The
effectiveness of the Court's work very much depends on what you do in the
field. Be aware that you are the public face of the Court by demonstrating the
utmost integrity", she told them. The meeting also allowed the new Registrar to
appreciate the situations with which the ICC teams working in the field are
faced.
The Registrar also met with national and private Congolese
mass media as well as representatives of civil society organisations,
representatives of bar associations, victims and women associations based in
Kinshasa active in the area of international criminal justice. The discussions
were focused inter alia on latest judicial developments at the Court including
the decision of 13 June by Trial Chamber I in the Thomas Lubanga case, on the
preparations for the upcoming confirmation of charges in the Katanga and
Ngudjolo Chui case, on the participation of victims before the Court,and on the
concept of fair trial.
During the two day visit, Ms. Arbia in a meeting with the
Special Representative of the UN Secretary General, Mr. Allan Doss updated him
on the judicial status of the Lubanga and Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui cases and
touched upon various issues pertaining to the ICC-UN cooperation.
[back to contents]
Uganda (ICC)
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Uganda
Darfur / DRC / CAR / Uganda / ICC Prosecutor to brief
European Union Foreign Ministers on 16 June
African Press Organization
June 16, 2008
Today in Luxembourg, ICC Prosecutor Luis
Moreno-Ocampo will brief the European Union during a meeting of the General
Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union.
The meeting takes place as part of Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo's
co-operation activities with the United Nations and regional organisations,
among them the African Union, the Arab League and the EU. It is the first time
the ICC Prosecutor has been invited to address the Council to provide an update on ICC activities, in particular in Darfur.
The European Union is a major supporter of the Court. In
Luxembourg , the Prosecutor will address the need to enforce the judicial
decisions of the Court, including the arrest warrants, in a consistent
manner. Six arrest warrants of the ICC are still outstanding. No support,
no financial aid should reach any indicted criminals. There is no possible exit
strategy for fugitives from the Court. There can be no double standards. Joseph
Kony, leader of Northern Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army and his lieutenants,
Sudanese Mininster of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Ahmad Harun,
Janjaweed/Militia leader Ali Kushayb, and militia leader Bosco Ntaganda must
end up in the ICC courtroom.
In July, the Prosecutor will present evidence to ICC judges
on his new investigation into massive crimes in Darfur.
The International Criminal Court is an independent,
permanent court that investigates and prosecutes persons accused of the most
serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes if national authorities with jurisdiction are unwilling
or unable to do so genuinely. The Office of the Prosecutor is
currently investigating in four situations: The Democratic Republic of
Congo, Northern Uganda, the Darfur region of Sudan, and the Central African
Republic, all still engulfed in various degrees of conflict with victims in
urgent need of protection.
Kony must appear in court, says prosecutor
The Monitor
By Rodney Muhumuza
June 18, 2008
The International Criminal Court has said in its latest statement that Lord's Resistance Army chief Joseph Kony "must end up in the ICC courtroom."
According to the June 16 statement, the ICC, which indicted Kony and his top
lieutenants at the end of 2005, is seeking the support of the European Union to
"enforce its judicial decisions, including the arrest warrants, in a consistent
manner".
ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo on Monday briefed a meeting of the General
Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union on his strategy.
Six warrants of the ICC are still outstanding, and The-Hague court hopes that
greater international cooperation could lead to the arrest of the indicted men
still at large.
"No support, no financial aid should reach any indicted criminals. There is no
possible exit strategy for fugitives from the Court. There can be no double
standards," the statement said.
Other than Kony and his top lieutenants, the other wanted men include: Ahmed
Harun, the Sudanese minister of state for humanitarian affairs; Ali Kushayb,
the Janjaweed militia leader; and Bosco Ntaganda, a Congolese war crimes
suspect.
The issue of the ICC arrest warrants against the LRA leadership became a major
sticking point during the South Sudan-mediated peace talks, which have since
collapsed. Kony is said to have refused to sign a comprehensive peace deal in
April because matters regarding his security were not well addressed.
The ICC was also criticised for focusing only on the crimes committed by the
LRA and ignoring those committed by the Ugandan military.
Recent efforts to revive the peace process have been unsuccessful so far, and
it is reported that Kony has been terrorising villages and abducting children
in the Central African Republic since February 2008.
Still, even though the UPDF has threatened to attack the LRA, there have been
no recent clashes between the Ugandan military and the rebel outfit. Dr
Riek Machar, the South Sudan vice-president who mediated the talks, has
reportedly said Kony should be given a second chance.
According to Dr Machar, already-signed aspects of the peace agreement should be
implemented "in good faith", even if the rebel leader refuses to append his
signature to the final deal.
"It's essential to continue to encourage the LRA to re-engage with the peace
process and complete formal signing of the final peace agreement," Dr Machar
reportedly said in a recent report on the Juba Peace Process. "If we
succeed in this, then we would be able to proceed with the full implementation
of the agreements."
[back to contents]
The Trial of Alberto Fujimori
Fujimori on Trial
Salazar says Fujimori ordered him to give SIN money to Montesinos
Fujimori On Trial
June 12, 2008
Sixty-eighth session. Former Peruvian military general and director of the National Intelligence Agency (SIN), Julio Salazar Monroe, continued with his testimony. Salazar admitted that he only completed the basic intelligence course and never took the advanced course. He also said that Fujimori gave him the order to deliver sums of money from the SIN to Vladimiro Montesinos.
Chief Public Prosecutor Jose Pelaez made the announcement after giving orders to suspend the trial from next Wednesday until June 11 to allow Fujimori to hava an operation for oral leukoplasia.
1. Incidents during the hearing:
Post-operation recovery
According to the report from the Institute of Legal Medicine, which was read aloud at the hearing, Fujimori will be able to take part in his trial and his post-operation recovery will last a total of one to two weeks, meaning there is no limitation on the trial’s continuation. However, due to Fujimori’s health, the President of the Court decided that the sessions will now only take place in the morning.
Exchange of words between Fujimori’s (and Salazar Monroe’s) lawyer and state prosecutor
During the session, there were repeated disputes between Fujimori’s lawyer, César Nakazaki and the state prosecutor, Avelino Guillén. At one point, Nakazaki interrupted the prosecution’s examination to say "I remind you that he is a witness," implying that the prosecution’s tone toward Julio Salazar Monroe was incriminatory. In turn, Guillén replied, "I remind you that he is your client." It is important to remember that Nakazaki has represented Salazar since 2001 and during the present hearing, another lawyer from Nakazaki’s firm is taking the role of representing Salazar.
Nakazaki’s interventions
The interventions made by Salazar’s lawyer were few. More interventions to defend the witness’ right against self-incrimination were made by Fujimori’s lawyer, Nakazaki.
2. Julio Salazar Monroe’s testimony – The most relevant aspects of Salazar’s testimony were:
The SIN had intelligence analysts
When the state prosecutor asked if the SIN had intelligence agents, Salazar answered: "it depends on how you interpret it, because it’s a very broad concept […] The SIN didn’t have operative intelligence agents; what the SIN had were intelligence analysts."
Fujimori ordered Salazar to give Montesinos money from the SIN budget
Salazar testified that when he was director of the SIN, Fujimori ordered him to give money from the SIN (from Reserve 1 and Reserve 2) to Vladimiro Montesinos. The witness did not remember when exactly he received this order from Fujimori. Also, when Salazar gave this information, his defense lawyer requested to speak to him. After the lawyer talked to the witness, the state prosecutor asked Salazar if it was true that he received Fujimori’s order to give SIN money to Montesinos. The witness confirmed that this was true.
Salazar admitted that he ordered the money to be delivered, which was done through Col. José Villalobos Candela, who at that time was head of the SIN’s office administration. Salazar also indicated that Fujimori approved his own accountability through a supreme resolution.
Vladimiro Montesinos had SIN staff at his disposal
The witness admitted that Montesinos had SIN staff members — including some active Peruvian military personnel — at his disposal, although as SIN director, Salazar did not know what work these staff members carried out. Furthermore, the witness did not know about an additional account that was supposedly managed by Montesinos in the SIN, where monthly payments were made to various non-SIN employees, nor did he know that this account had US$600,000.
The witness also stated that he was unaware that seven private safes were installed in Montesinos’ private offices.
Montesinos’ role at the SIN
Salazar reiterated that "Mr. Vladimiro was advisor to the High Office and personal advisor of the country’s president." However, he admitted not knowing if Montesinos had a parallel agenda to the SIN’s, since he had absolute independence in the assignments the president gave him. It is important to remember that previously, SIN advisors Pedro Huertas Caballero and Rafael Merino Bartet, have testified before the Judicial Power that they only received orders and were accountable to Montesinos. However Salazar said he never knew about this.
Montesinos and the SIN tapes ("Vladivideos")
Salazar said that as SIN director he never knew about the meetings that Montesinos held and filmed in Salazar’s offices. The witness said he never found out about the videos (commonly referred to "Vladivideos" by Peruvians) and was similarly unaware that various politicians and judges met in the offices, such as:
- Jaime Beltrán Quiroga, former Supreme Court member
- Alex Kouri, Luz Salgado (member of Fujimori’s political party), Absalón Vásquez (currently being tried for the forging of signatures, used to nominate Fujimori as a presidential candidate in the 2000 elections)
- Daniel Borobio
- Julio Vera Abad
Though these meetings were carried out during workdays at the SIN and in Salazar’s offices, Salazar indicated that Montesinos never asked him for authorization to hold these meetings or to film them.
On Plan Cipango
The witness claimed that the Plan Cipango document had no validity whatsoever, saying: "not even an illiterate person in the army does this," and "this plan has no signature," and also "it is not an authentic document." These statements contradict what was said by Gen. Santiago Martin Rivas and former Col. Víctor Raúl Silva Mendoza.
3. Next session will continue with Julio Salazar Monroe
At the next session on Friday, June 13th, the prosecution will continue with its examination. According to statements made by one of the lawyers for the victims’ families, Ronald Gamarra, Vladimiro Montesinos is expected to begin his testimony on June 20.
Salazar confirms that he received verbal orders from Fujimori
Fujimori On Trial
June 18, 2008
Seventieth session. Former military official Julio Salazar Monroe continued his testimony. Through Salazar’s testimony, the Public Prosecutor seeks to demonstrate (as stated on p.30 of the formal accusation), that Fujimori was the highest power in the Colina detachment’s command chain and decisions on the execution of crimes were given through Vladimiro Montesinos, Fujimori’s personal advisor and de facto director of the National Intelligence Service (SIN).
1. Incidents during the hearing:
Fujimori’s defense lawyers
Fujimori’s lawyer César Nakazaki was not present at this session, rather it was lawyer Gladys Vallejo and lawyer Johan Pinedo who assumed Fujimori’s defense. On various other occasions they have also assumed legal representation of Salazar Monroe - the witness during this session.
However, in the first recess during the trial, Luis Delgado Aparicio (former secretary general of the pro-Fujimori political movement, Si Cumple), was seen talking to lawyers Vallejo and Pinedo about asking the Court for a trial suspension until Wednesday, June 18. Delgado’s argument was that Fujimori was bleeding after his operation, which caused him some pain.
Satisfactory medical report
On resuming the session, defense lawyer Pinedo asked the Court to suspend the session, for the reasons provided by Delgado. However, the Court asked the doctors from the Institute of Legal Medicine and from the National Penitentiary Institute to evaluate Fujimori’s health, confirming that the defendant could indeed continue with the session. The session ended at 5pm for a total of six hours, with recesses each two hours. At the beginning of the session, a report stating Fujimori’s satisfactory health was turned in.
2. Julio Salazar Monroe’s testimony - The most relevant parts of Salazar’s testimony:
He received direct verbal orders from Fujimori
The witness stated that he received direct orders from Fujimori, which were given verbally. Once Salazar had carried out the orders, he returned to Fujimori, giving a direct and oral account of his task.
Contradictions on the Tarata bombing
In 2003, Salazar testified before the Judicial Power on the Tarata Street bombing, saying that he, as official director of the SIN, drafted a report that he handed in to Fujimori. However, during the current trial against Fujimori, Salazar refused to remember this and said that he probably would have written a report, but that he wasn’t sure and thus couldn’t affirm it as he did in 2003. It’s important to keep in mind that Salazar was legally represented by Nakazaki, who had not yet assumed the legal defense of Alberto Fujimori. Moreover, Fujimori was at this time in Japan and showed no signs of an intended return to Peru.
National Defense Council and Vladimiro Montesinos
The witness also said that Vladimiro Montesinos participated in the National Defense Council’s meetings.
The SIN verbally decided on the formation of the Analysis Group
According to Salazar, he received a request from the former head of the Counter Subversion Office (DIRCOTE) Héctor John Caro to form a group of analysts. The agreement for the group’s formation was verbal, thus there is no written document that registers the agreement: "Everything was verbal, there is no written document."
It’s important to keep in mind that one of the principal arguments of Fujimori’s defense is that there is no written document signed by Fujimori that approved the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta crimes.
3. Next session will continue with Julio Salazar Monroe’s testimony
At the next session on Wednesday, June 18, the Public Prosecutor will continue his examination of Salazar Monroe. Afterward, the witness will be examined by the lawyers for the victims’ families, then by Fujimori’s defense lawyers (who are also Salazar Monroe’s lawyers) and lastly by the Court.
[back to contents]
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Official Website of the ICTY
Lukic case trial to open on 9 July
Sense Tribunal
June 12, 2008
The trial of Milan and Sredoje Lukic, for some of the most brutal crimes committed in Visegrad in 1992, is scheduled to begin on 9 July 2008. The prosecution has obtained new evidence and now wants to amend the indictment to include the rape charge
The trial of Milan and Sredoje Lukic, charged with crimes committed in 1992 in Visegrad, will start on 9 July 2008 with the opening statement of the prosecution. The prosecution will call its first witnesses on 10 and 11 July, pre-trial judge Krister Thelin announced at the status conference today.
A pre-trial conference is scheduled for 2 July 2008, but it is likely to take place seven days later, before the opening statement delivered by the prosecutor Dermot Groome, since Jason Alarid, a US attorney representing former White Eagles commander, Milan Lukic, has other business to attend to.
In the meantime the prosecution has sought leave to amend the indictment against Milan and Sredoje Lukic to include the charges of rape and sexual enslavement. New evidence has been obtained as the prosecution investigated the alibi defense of the two accused, the prosecutor clarified. Pretrial judge Thelin said that it would be more logical to reduce the scope of the indictment, not to broaden it, adding that the full Trial Chamber would rule on the prosecution motion.
In the current indictment, Milan and Sredoje Lukic are charged with some of the most serious and brutal crimes committed against Bosniak civilians in Visegrad. According to the prosecution, in 1992 Milan Lukic formed the White Eagles, also known as the Avengers, a paramilitary unit, in Visegrad. His relative Sredoje Lukic, a police officer from Visegrad, joined the unit. The two of them, the indictment alleges, burned about 140 women, children and old men alive in two locations in Visegrad – in the Pionirska Street and in the Bikavac neighborhood. The victims took shelter in Visegrad after they were expelled from the Bosniak villages around it.
The two accused pleaded not guilty to all the counts in the indictment charging them with extermination, persecution, killing, beating, cruel treatment and other inhumane acts.
Serbia's war crimes prosecutor gets death threat
Reuters
June 17, 2008
BELGRADE, June 17 (Reuters) - Serbia's war crimes prosecutor, Vladimir Vukcevic, has received a death threat for extraditing war crimes indictees to the Hague tribunal, his office said on Tuesday.
Since Vukcevic's team found and arrested Bosnian Serb war crimes suspect Stojan Zupljanin last week, they have received numerous threatening telephone calls, and there was a bomb threat when Zupljanin was transferred to prison in Belgrade.
"This was a very dramatic and pointed threat," the prosecutor's spokesman Bruno Vekaric told Serbia's RTS television. "The voice said Zupljanin's arrest would be the last one tolerated, but Vukcevic will not be forgiven any more extraditions."
The call was traced by police to the Netherlands.
In April, authorities uncovered an assassination plot targeting Vukcevic which involved Bosnian Serb former security officers.
Several judges in anti-mafia trials have reported receiving death threats and a judge in southeast Serbia was killed in a bomb blast in March.
Zupljanin is currently in custody and awaiting extradition.
His arrest leaves three ethnic Serbs still on the run from the United Nat
