War Crimes Prosecution Watch

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber

Commencement of trial in the Predrag Bastah and Others case scheduled
State Court of BiH
June 26, 2008

A commencement of trial before the Section I for War Crimes of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), in the Predrag Bastah and Others case, has been scheduled for 27 June 2008 starting at 09:00a.m. in courtroom 6. Predrag Bastah, Veljk Baši? and Goran Viškovi? are charged with Crimes against humanity.

As alleged in the Indictment, the Accused Predrag Bastah, Goran Viškovi? and Veljko Baši?, in the period from April until the end of September 1992, took part in a systematic attack directed against the non-Serb population of the Vlasenica Municipality. The Accused allegedly took part in the arrest, capture and detention of Bosniak civilians in the camp “Sušica”. As the Indictment alleges among other things, on 23 April 1992 the Accused Predrag Bastah, as a member of the Reserve Police Force Vlasenica, in the immediate vicinity of the catering establishment „Lipa“ in Vlasenica, together with another Serb soldier, ordered a civilian to drive to the Police Station in Vlasenica. Later on, together with three other Serb soldiers the Accused Bastah allegedly beat him all over his body causing severe physical injuries. Furthermore, as alleged in the Indictment, on 31 May 1992 the Accused Bastah took part in the unlawful detention of two Bosniak civilians in the Police Station Vlasenica, where they were allegedly tortured. As the Indictment further alleges, as a member of the Army of Republika Srpska and together with a few unidentified persons in uniforms, the Accused Viškovi? beat a Bosniak civilian repeatedly in May 1992 at the Police Station Vlasenica.

Indictment confirmed in the Zrinko Pinčić case
State Court of BiH
June 27, 2008

On 26 June 2008, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) confirmed the Indictment against Zrinko Pinčić. Zrinko Pinčić is charged with the criminal offense of War Crimes against Civilians.

As alleged in the Indictment, the Accused Pinčić, as a member of the HVO /Croat Defense Council/, during the period from November 1992 until March 1993, in the village of Donje Selo, Konjic Municipality, used to come armed, during night time, to a house where Serb civilians were detained, women and children). The suspect Pinčić, as alleged in the Prosecutor’s motion, repeatedly took one female person from the room where other civilians were detained, and forced her to sexual intercourse, holding his rifle by the bed and threatening her that he would bring 15 soldiers and that she would see what would then happen to all of them.

On 26 June 2008 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) issued a Decision dismissing Prosecutor’s motion for the extension of custody, terminating custody for the Accused Pinčić and imposing prohibitive measures which include:

• ban on leaving the place of residence without prior consent of the Court
• temporary seizure of travel documents and the prohibition of the issuance of new travel documents and the prohibition to use the ID card for crossing the state border
• prohibition to change the place of residence without prior consent of the Court
• reporting to the Police Station Mostar between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.
• ban on contacting witnesses listed in the Indictment in any manner, as well as potential witnesses in this case
• ban on discussing the case with anyone but his attorney
• ban on visiting places and areas where witnesses listed in the Indictment reside
• the Accused is ordered to act in accordance with the Court’s orders and summonses which alter conditions or terminate these measures or which require his attendance before the Court, as well as for him to be available to the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH regardless of his right to remain silent.

In case that the Accused Pinčić breaches any of the aforementioned measures the Court will order custody.

Kujundzic: Russian roulette
BIRN Justice Report
June 27, 2008

Witnesses for the Bosnia and Herzegovina prosecution recall the role of Predrag Kujundzic and his paramilitary "Preda's Wolves" in crimes in Doboj.

The Bosnia and Herzegovina Prosecution's protected witness recalled his meeting with Predrag Kujundzic and the abuse he suffered during his imprisonment in the camps in Doboj, between June 1992 and April 1993. "On one occasion, Predrag Kujundzic walked into the room where I was abused and asked me if I wanted to play Russian roulette with him. He put a gun to my head and fired a blank. After that he hit me in the right cheek and said, 'Too bad'," recalled the witness, known as '6'.

The Prosecution charges Predrag Kujundzic, as a commander of the paramilitary "Preda's Wolves", with participating in the persecution, occupation of villages, looting, rape, enslavement, as well as physical and mental abuse of civilians in 1992 and 1993 in Doboj. The indictment specifies that Kujundzic "on an unspecified day in 1992" participated in the physical and mental abuse of witness 6 in the Central Prison in Doboj. "I recall one day when they ordered me to take my clothes off. A policeman took a cable and repeatedly hit me with it so hard that I started losing consciousness. In the end, he grabbed a chair and started beating me with it," said witness 6.

Kazimir Barukcic, the second witness for the prosecution, former prisoner of the "Perca's disco" detention camp said why he joined the police of the Republika Srpska upon his release. "My brother was with me in the camp and he was wounded there when they had taken him as a human shield. Policeman Zoran Devic, whom he saved, was also wounded. Devic later assisted my release when some policemen asked me if I wanted to leave as a civilian and join them. Those were not safe times for civilians so I decided to join the police," said Barukcic. Barukcic said that "Preda's Wolves" were part of the police in Doboj, and that in 1993 they switched under "army command."

Emsud Herceg, the third witness for the prosecution, said "Preda's Wolves" in June 1992 took part in the arrest of civilians in the village of Bukovacke Civcije, as well as the transport of prisoners from "Perca's disco" camp for use as human shields. "On July 12, 1992, the Red Berets and Preda's Wolves came to Perca's disco, picked out 50 prisoners and took us as human shields. Preda's Wolves had their faces painted and wore dark camouflage uniforms," emphasised Herceg. The indictment specifies that prisoners from the "Perca's disco" camp were taken as human shields where at least 16 of them were killed. The trial will resume on July 1.

Andrun: Another visit to Gabela
BIRN Justice Report
June 30, 2008

The Appellate Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina wants to visit the Gabela detention camp, together with a Prosecution witness, who is supposed to identify the place where he stayed.

Towards the end of the presentation of evidence at the retrial of Nikola Andrun, the Appellate Chamber of the State Court has announced that it will conduct a repeated crimes scene inspection and a "partial reconstruction of events" in the Gabela detention camp on July 3.

The site inspection will be conducted by Chamber members and witness Mirza Colakovic, who will be asked to identify the building in which he was allegedly detained.

Mirza Colakovic appeared as the first Prosecution witness at the trial of Nikola Andrun, who was sentenced, by a first instance verdict announced by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in December 2006, to 13 years imprisonment for having participated, as deputy commander of the Gabela detention camp, in murder, torture and inhumane treatment of detained civilians in 1993.

Upholding the appeals, filed by both parties, the Appellate Chamber revoked the first instance verdict and ordered a retrial to be conducted. This witness was examined again in the course of the retrial. During the course of his testimony at the first instance trial and the retrial, Colakovic was not able to recognize the room in which he stayed during his detention in Gabela, when he was shown a video recording made during the first reconstruction of events, conducted in Gabela.

"We agreed that the video recording made in Gabela was not fully correct. We have therefore decided to go to the field again," Appellate Chamber Chairwoman Azra Miletic said but she did not mention why the recording was not considered as "fully correct."

At this hearing, the Defense provided more details concerning its proposal to introduce ten new pieces of material evidence and examine five more witnesses, two of whom testified in the course of the first instance trial already.

Once again the Prosecution said it objected this proposal.

The Appellate Chamber will announce its decision concerning the proposal at the next hearing, scheduled for July 4.

Djukic: Shocking moments
BIRN Justice Report
July 1, 2008

Four witnesses, who survived the massacre at Kapija in Tuzla, describe the chaos that followed the explosion.

Four new witnesses, who appeared before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, recalled the events that happened in Tuzla on May 25, 1995, when 71 persons were killed and about 240 were wounded.

"At that moment I sensed a shocking hit in my chest. I saw some intense light and then it became dark. I was wounded in my legs. I saw people lying there, without showing any sign of life. Those were the shocking moments," Damir Tucakovic said.

The Prosecution considers that Novak Djukic, former commander of the Ozren Tactical Group with the Republika Srpska Army, ordered the Artillery Squad, situated on mount Ozren, to shell Tuzla, using M46 cannons. The indictment alleges that one artillery projectile hit the downtown area, also known as Kapija.

Witness Azra Kapetanovic was sixteen, when she was wounded in her stomach at Kapija. She recalled how, following the explosion, she managed to reach a nearby coffee shop, which was "the only light she saw there." When she got there she called her father, who came and drove her to a hospital.

Azra Mitrovic was also wounded in Tuzla on that day.

"They drove me to the hospital. I had a feeling that all Tuzla citizens gathered in front of the Gradina hospital. They were all looking for somebody. The hospital corridor was covered with blood and the corpses were piled up there. I felt as if I were trampled. I heard news about the killed and the wounded. Many names of people and children were mentioned. I could not believe that it had happened to us," Mitrovic said.

At this hearing Ahmed Isic testified as well. He said that, on May 25, 1995 he was lightly wounded and he managed to drive his brother Muhamed and "three or four other people" to the hospital.

"I was the first one who reached the Gradina hospital. After that others started bringing more wounded people. We wrapped the dead in blankets and we piled them up in the corridor. I saw my friend Samir, whose legs were cut off. In some way he saved me, because he stood right in front of me and 'absorbed' all the shrapnel. He died in the hospital," Isic said.

The trial of Novak Djukic is due to continue on July 8, when new Prosecution witnesses will be examined.

Lazarevic et al: Just an ordinary guard
BIRN Justice Report
July 2, 2008

A Defense witness denies allegations that Sreten Lazarevic was a liaison person in the detention units established in Zvornik in 1992.

Sredo Vukovic, who testified as a joint Defense witness at the trial of the former reserve policemen with the Public Safety Station in Zvornik, said indictee Sreten Lazarevic was not his deputy manager of the Zvornik detention units.

"Neither me nor any other Public Safety Station officers issued an authorization to appoint Lazarevic as my deputy. He was just an ordinary guard, like everybody else," Vukovic said, adding that he acted as "a coordinator between the prisons and the Public Safety Station authorities."

The State Prosecution charges Sreten Lazarevic, Dragan Stanojevic, Mile Markovic and Slobodan Ostojic with war crimes against civilians.

The indictment alleges that Stanojevic, Markovic and Ostojic, who were guards in the detention camps formed in the offence court and "Novi izvor" factory buildings in Zvornik, participated in the mistreatment of detained civilians in 1992 and 1993.

Indictee Lazarevic is charged, as deputy manager of the two detention camps, with having failed to stop the mistreatment of detainees.

During direct examination conducted by the Defense teams, Vukovic explained that there were many paramilitary groups in Zvornik in 1992 and "not even the guards dare confront members of those groups."

The indictment alleges that, on several occasions, Lazarevic unlocked the door to the prison unit and enabled some groups of Serbian soldiers to torture and mistreat the detainees.

"The guards did not have any opportunity to resist the paramilitary formations, especially to members of 'Gogic's Unit' from Loznica. It even happened that some of them attacked the guards," Vukovic added.

When asked by the Prosecutor to describe one attack against the guards, the witness said that some military group members once attacked Lazarevic. He said that Lazarevic personally told him about it "after the investigation of the crimes charged upon the Zvornik Four had commenced."

Speaking about his "coordination work," the witness said that he "visited the detention camps two or three times per month" and he spoke to the guards and detainees.

"Nobody ever complained about being mistreated. Not even the detainees, to whom I spoke at the time and after the war," Vukovic added, denying that he ever heard of any cases of sexual abuse or carving of crosses on detained civilians' foreheads.

The trial is due to continue on July 3, 2008.

Gasal et al: Victims Give Conflicting Statements
BIRN Justice Report
July 2, 2008

Two Prosecution witnesses, who stayed in the same room during their detention at the stadium in Bugojno, give different statements concerning the events that happened at that time.

Two Prosecution witnesses gave conflicting statements about what they lived through during their detention in "Iskra" detention camp in Bugojno.

The State Prosecution considers Nisvet Gasal, Musajb Kukavica, Enes Handzic and Senad Dautovic responsible for the crimes against more than 300 ethnic Croatian civilians, who were detained at "Iskra" stadium in 1993 and 1994.

Milenko Begic and Zdravko Kezic from Ljubuski said that they were captured as members of the Croatian Defense Council, HVO, "in the vicinity of Gornji Vakuf" on August 27, 1993. They said they were first taken to the Cultural and Sports House in Bugojno and, "fifteen days later," to the "Iskra" stadium, where the two of them were held in the same room.

Begic told the Court that they did not have "any contact with other detainees" and the guards used to take them out to eat only after the other detainees had finished eating. On the other hand, Kezic said that they "saw other detainees only when they went to the toilet or during meals."

Both witnesses said that, during the course of their detention at the stadium, unknown persons used to come there at night, take them to the playground and beat them.

Begic said that the beating started "five or six days after the arrival," while Kezic said that it started after the visit by the International Red Cross in late September 1993.

"After the Red Cross staff made a list of detainees, we were transferred to another room, but, again, there was nobody else in the room except the two of us. A few days prior to the exchange, which was on October 13, 1993, they brought detainee Anto Marjanovic to that room," Begic said.

Witness Zdravko Kezic told the Court that Marjanovic was brought there a few days after their arrival to the stadium and all three of them were then transferred to another room, together with "ten other detainees."

At this hearing the Trial Chamber announced that it had not made a decision concerning the custody termination motion filed by Nisvet Gasal's Defense.

The Court asked the Prosecution to provide additional explanation concerning the alleged pressure on the witnesses.

Prosecutor Slavica Terzic said that she did not conduct an investigation or detailed checks concerning the allegations made by some witnesses that they were threatened. She said that the Prosecution "concluded that the threats were serious."

The next hearing is due to take place on July 9.

Savic: Trial to start on August 12
BIRN Justice Report
July 2, 2008

At the status conference the State Prosecution and Momir Savic's Defense present their evidence presentation plans.

The trial of Momir Savic, who is charged with crimes against humanity in Visegrad in 1992, is due to start on August 12, when the indictment will be read. On the same day the State Prosecution and Defense will present their introductory arguments.

The State Prosecution charges Savic, as commander of the Third Squad with the Visegrad Brigade of the Republika Srpska Army, VRS, with having participated, on several occasions, in the examination and beating of Bosniak civilians from Visegrad. He is also charged with having raped one person, who he "frequently visited in her house" and mistreated and threatened her from June to September 1992.

The Prosecution considers that the indictee and other VRS members took a group of Bosniak civilians from their houses in Drinsko village, Visegrad municipality, mistreated them and then shot them in Pusin Do forest in May 1992.

The indictment charges Savic with having shot a group of civilians from Dusce village. The civilians were then cremated.

The Prosecution will need about 45 working hours for the presentation of its evidence.

Prosecutor Adnan Gulamovic said that, in order to prove the allegations contained in the indictment, 33 witnesses and a medical court expert would be examined. He also announced that he would propose some "facts determined" by the Hague Tribunal to be included as material evidence.

"In case the Defense accepts the facts determined by the Hague Tribunal, we may reduce the number of witnesses, who will be examined in an attempt to prove the existence of a broad and systematic attack conducted by the VRS in the Visegrad area," Gulamovic said.

The Defense of Momir Savic announced the examination of "not less than 15 and not more than 20 witnesses" and the presentation of a few pieces of material evidence. As indicated by Defense attorney Dragan Medjovic, the time needed for the presentation of evidence "will be proportional to the time needed for the presentation of the Prosecution's evidence."

The State Prosecution made a proposal for the acceptance of some parts of the verdict against Mitar Vasiljevic as determined facts. The Defense said that this would "severely violate the right to a fair trial, direct presentation of evidence and the presumption of the indictee's innocence."

The Hague Tribunal pronounced a second instance verdict against Mitar Vasiljevic, sentencing him to 15 years imprisonment.

"Considering that my client is charged with crimes against humanity, the existence of a broad and systematic attack conducted by the VRS represents an important element. If the Trial Chamber decides to accept that as a previously determined fact, my client would automatically be pronounced guilty," Medjovic said.

The Trial Chamber will render a decision concerning the acceptance of the determined facts, contained in the ICTY verdicts, at a later stage.

[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)

First Khmer Rouge trials in September
The Phnom Penh Post
By Cheang Sokha
June 24, 2008

Cambodia's Khmer Rouge tribunal expects to open its first public trial in September, court officials say, adding, however, that it faces a shortfall of nearly $44 million under a revised budget that nearly doubles the amount of money sought from donors and the Cambodian government.

Officials with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, as the tribunal is known, announced on June 24 a new budget proposal that extends the court's mandate by a year and raises the cost of trying former Khmer Rouge leaders from $56.3 million to $104.6 million.

Sean Visoth, Cambodia's top official to the joint UN-Cambodian proceedings, also said the court expected to put Tuol Sleng prison chief Kaing Khek Iev on the dock in September, more than two years after the court first began its work.

"The co-investigating judges announced on May 15 that they had concluded the judicial investigation on case number one," Visoth told reporters, referring to the case against Khek Ieu, also known by his revolutionary name, Duch, who was the first of five senior regime leaders to be detained by the tribunal.

"They are hoping to order a closing order in July. We are preparing for the trials to be able to commence in September," he added.

The tribunal opened in July 2006 after years of often stalled negotiations between the UN and Cambodia with an expected three-year lifespan.

In addition to Duch, four others have been detained and are facing trial for crimes allegedly committed during their 1975-79 rule over Cambodia. They are the regime's most senior surviving leader, Nuon Chea, Head of State Khieu Samphan, Foreign Minister Ieng Sary, and Social Affairs Minister Ieng Thirith.

Some 1.7 million people died of starvation, disease and overwork, or were executed as the ultra-communist regime drove the entire population onto vast collective farms and erased every vestige of modern society in a bid to forge an agrarian workers' utopia.

But the task of bringing to justice those responsible for the apocalypse that engulfed Cambodia soon overwhelmed the tribunal's budget and staffing capabilities, forcing court officials to go back to its donors for more money.

A series of scandals over fiscal mismanagement and alleged leadership failures, however, made the international community hesitant to pour more money into the tribunal, leaving it repeatedly on the verge of bankruptcy.

A series of cash infusions, including a $2.9 million pledge earlier this month from the court's biggest donor, Japan, have kept it limping along.

Court officials, however, told donors in New York on June 20 that an additional $50.2 million would be needed to keep the court operational through 2010, down from the additional $114 million they had proposed earlier this year.

So far, only $6.4 million has been pledged, Visoth said.

"We are quite optimistic about the aid from donor countries,” Visoth said, while Knut Rosandhaug, the UN's top tribunal official, acknowledged that the court would have to operate with less than hoped for.

"We are going to have less resources and because of that, clearly there has to be more efficiency than there was in the first place," Rosandhaug said.

"I am not going to attack any one part of the court. There has to be increased efficiency across the board. We all want to complete this as soon as possible," he added.

Khmer Rogue Appeals Case to Test Limits of International Law
AFP via Google News
June 29, 2008

The first big test of the UN-backed Cambodian genocide court begins on Monday when a former Khmer Rouge foreign minister is scheduled to appear in court to appeal against his detention.

Ieng Sary, 82, is one of five top regime cadres currently detained for crimes allegedly committed during the Khmer Rouge's 1975-79 rule over Cambodia.

He has been charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity and is expected to face trial within the next year.

But his lawyers say that Ieng Sary was absolved of any crimes after he surrendered to the government in 1996, when he received a royal pardon for an earlier genocide conviction.

That conviction was handed down in a 1979 trial in absentia conducted by the government installed after Vietnam occupied the country and ended the Khmer Rouge's bloody reign.

"The court will have to decide whether the amnesty is valid or not. Maybe they will have a conflict between Cambodia's constitution and international norms," said Sok Samoueun, head of the Cambodian Defenders Project (CDP).

Deciding whether nationally granted amnesties apply to international trials is a significant area of contention that has been raised in the Sierra Leone war crimes trial and the International Criminal Court, said Rupert Skillbeck, head of the Khmer Rouge tribunal's defence office.

"Amnesty is one of the areas of international criminal law where law and politics collide. But the (Khmer Rouge trial) judges will have to judge it as a legal question to be decided," Skillbeck said.

"It's one of the most significant legal questions for this tribunal to answer and an important question in international criminal law in general," he added.

At Monday's hearing, Ieng Sary's lawyers will seek to have him freed on bail, and are expected to argue later in the week that the charges should be dropped because his amnesty still holds.

As the top Khmer Rouge diplomat, Ieng Sary was frequently the only point of contact between Cambodia's secretive communist rulers and the outside world.

He was also one of the biggest public supporters of the regime's mass purges, researchers say.

"He came as close as any senior (Khmer Rouge) official in power ever did to describing publicly... the policy of executing", said Stephen Heder and Brian Tittemore in their book "Seven Candidates for Prosecution: Accountability for the Crimes of the Khmer Rouge."

Up to two million people died of starvation and overwork, or were executed, as the Khmer Rouge set about dismantling modern Cambodia after seizing control of the country.

But as much as he was an advocate for the regime during its 1975-79 rule, Ieng Sary's later defection to the government proved a fatal blow to the then-disintegrating movement.

His departure came two years before Pol Pot's death in 1998. The two had met as schoolboys in the capital Phnom Penh and later became eager supporters of the communist movement at university in Paris.

His wife Thirith, who also became a minister in the Khmer Rouge regime, was arrested with him in November.

Ieng Sary has suffered from deteriorating health since his arrest, according to his lawyer, highlighting the fragile condition of the tribunal's likely defendants, who are mostly in their 70s and 80s.

Khieu Samphan Defense Lawyer Resigns
VOA News
July 1, 2008

The Cambodian lawyer of jailed Khmer Rouge leader Khieu Samphan has resigned, tribunal officials said Monday.

Sy Bory resigned last week due to reasons of ill health, said Rupert Skilbeck, head of the tribunal's defense section, declining further detail.

Sy Bory was likely to continue for a short while, but would not be able to complete the entire trial process, Skilbeck said, adding that it was better to replace him sooner rather than later.

Khieu Samphan will have to select new Cambodian representation, Skilbeck said.

Sy Bory's resignation was not likely to affect Khieu Samphan's trial, he said.

"We are confident he will be able to transfer the case smoothly and not cause any delay," Skilbeck said.

Sy Bory's resignation was not likely to bring any consequences for Khieu Samphan, said Hisham Mousar, who monitors the tribunal for the rights group Adhoc.

Sy Bory's work so far was to speak to reporters and to write a letter of appeal against the former leader's pre-trial detention. Khieu Samphan's French lawyer, Jacques Verges, had done much of the casework so far, Hisham Mousar said.

A tribunal statement issued Thursday said a new Cambodian lawyer would be selected "shortly."

Former Khmer Rouge foreign minister claims double jeopardy at Cambodian genocide hearing
Associated Press via International Herald Tribune
July 1, 2008

Lawyers for the former Khmer Rouge foreign minister told Cambodia's genocide tribunal Tuesday that its case against their client violates "double jeopardy" principles because he already was convicted of crimes against humanity and pardoned.

The United Nations-assisted court has charged Ieng Sary, 82, with crimes against humanity and war crimes, and he appeared before the panel Tuesday for a second day to argue that he should be freed from pretrial detention.

The hearing adjourned in the afternoon and was set to continue Wednesday.

On Monday, his defense lawyers argued that Ieng Sary should be released because of his ill health. On Tuesday they made a case for double jeopardy — the right not to be judged twice for the same crime.

The tribunal, jointly run by Cambodian and international personnel, is attempting to establish accountability for atrocities committed by the communist group when it ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.

The group's radical policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, overwork and execution.

Ieng Sary was condemned to death in absentia for genocide in a tribunal by a communist government that was installed in Cambodia by Vietnamese troops after they toppled the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979. The tribunal was conducted as a classic Soviet-style show trial, with no real effort to present a defense.

In 1996, Ieng Sary received a royal pardon from the sentence from former King Norodom Sihanouk as a reward for breaking away from the Khmer Rouge and leading his followers to join the government. The mutiny foreshadowed the group's surrender three years later in 1999.
In many legal systems — including French law, upon which Cambodian law is based — you cannot prosecute a person a second time for a crime for which a judgment has already been rendered.

Ieng Sary's lawyer Michael Karnavas argued that while some international tribunals have allowed "cumulative prosecutions," this was not permitted under Cambodian law. The American lawyer maintained that Ieng Sary was being tried by a domestic Cambodian court, not an international tribunal.

"As you well know, your honors, you're not here to legislate from the bench. You're here to apply the existing law as it is but not to create new law as if you're legislators," Karnavas said.
In counter arguments, co-prosecutor Yet Chakriya said Ieng Sary was not being prosecuted twice for the same crime because the charges he now faces, crimes against humanity and war crimes, differ from those leveled in 1979.

Another prosecutor, William Smith, said double jeopardy aims to protect people "from suffering the hardships of a trial or consequent punishment twice," but that Ieng Sary suffered neither hardship nor punishment from the earlier trial.

Smith also said that double jeopardy does not apply because the 1979 proceedings did not comply with any internationally recognized standards for a trial.

Ieng Sary, 82, is the only one of five defendants held by the current tribunal who was previously tried and pardoned.

The tribunal plans to hold its first trial later this year.

Ieng Sary's wife, 76-year-old Ieng Thirith, who served as the Khmer Rouge's social affairs minister, is among those being held on charges of crimes against humanity.

On Monday, Ieng Sary's defense team demanded that he be placed under either house arrest or protective hospitalization and undergo proper psychiatric examination to determine whether he is fit to stand trial.

Ieng Sary's "weak physical and mental capacity" makes him unable to fully assist his lawyers, Karnavas told the court.

Lawyers Urge 'Urgent' Release of Ieng Sary
VOA News
By Mean Veasna
July 2, 2008

Jailed Khmer Rouge leader Ieng Sary appeared for a third day in pre-trial hearings, where the court heard arguments surrounding a royal pardon for a 1979 genocide verdict and death sentence.

Defense lawyers are pushing for Ieng Sary's release on the grounds that he has already been tried for genocide, by a 1979 court set up in the wake of the ouster of the Khmer Rouge by Vietnamese forces. As part of a deal with the government in 1996, then-king Norodom Sihanouk pardoned the former Khmer Rouge foreign minister in return for his defection to the government.

Ieng Sary, who was too weak to finish a hearing on Monday, sat quietly in the court room listening to the arguments.

"The amnesty and the pardon conform with the Cambodian constitution," said Ang Udom, Ieng Sary's Cambodian lawyer. "All the crimes that have been charged against him are under the dimension of this royal [decree]."

"The pre-trial chamber must order the release of Ieng Sary, urgently and without condition," Ang Udom told the court.

The pardon, granted Sept. 14, 1996, banned further accusations of Ieng Sary under an anti-Khmer Rouge law.

Michael Karnavas, co-defense for Ieng Sary, said Wednesday the pardon was approved by the National Assembly and co-prime ministers Prince Norodom Ranariddh and Hun Sen.

The co-prime ministers understood the necessity for amnesty for Ieng Sary, which led to the mass defection of Khmer Rouge troops to the government, Karnavas said.

Ieng Sary was an agent of peace, Karnavas said.

However, prosecutors and civil parties rejected the legitimacy of the pardon.

Co-prosecutor William Smith said Cambodia was a signature country to international genocide mandates.

According to international law, and to obligations of each country member, Cambodia has an obligation to charge against such kind of violation, Smith said.

The royal pardon was only for Ieng Sary's execution, and not to prevent the prosecution of other crimes, Smith said.

Civil parties, which participated in the hearing, explained that the pardon was involved with government policy at the time, and the royal pardon was motivated by peace and reconciliation for the country.

[back to contents]

Darfur, Sudan (ICC)

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

Sudan contemplated extraditing Darfur suspects to ICC: Official
Sudan Tribune
by Wasil Ali
June 24, 2008

(WASHINGTON) –The Sudanese government considered turning over two suspects accused of war crimes in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC), a senior Sudanese official told Sudan Tribune today.

The official who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter said that the leadership of the National Congress Party (NCP) “is getting very nervous over the upcoming announcement by the ICC of new suspects”.

A year ago the judges of the ICC issued their first arrest warrants on the Darfur case against Haroun and militia commander Ali Mohamed Ali Abdel-Rahman, also know as Ali Kushayb. Sudan has so far rejected handing over the two suspects.
The senior official said that the NCP held an unpublicized meeting recently that included the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, 2nd Vice President Ali Osman Taha, presidential adviser Mustafa Ismail and state minister for foreign affairs Ali Karti among others.

According to the official, Karti made a presentation to the NCP leadership in which he outlined the “difficult position” the government will be in if senior officials are charged by the world court of war crimes.

Karti recommended that Haroun and Kushayb being extradited to the Hague “as a protection from further indictments” the official said.

Al-Bashir appeared to be in agreement with the proposal, the official said, as well as others who were present but that Vice President Taha staunchly opposed it “on the grounds of preserving Sudan’s sovereignty”.

Taha was the top official in charge of handling the Darfur crisis during 2003-2005. He secured the release of the notorious Janjaweed leader Musa Hilal from prison to help mobilize Arab tribes to crush the Darfur rebellion.

Hilal was serving a jail sentence for leading an armed robbery against the Central Bank of Nyala in which one policeman was killed.

The leak of the meeting comes a few days after the Sudanese president swore 3 times not to surrender any Sudanese citizen to the ICC.

Last week the UN Security Council (UNSC) and European Union (EU) issued formal statements voicing support for the work of court in Darfur. The EU threatened sanctions against individuals obstructing cooperation with the ICC.

The ICC prosecutor is also due to name new suspects next month likely to include 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.

Congo-Kinshasa: ICC Lubanga Case and the Future
International Center for Transitional Justice via AllAfrica.com
June 24, 2008

The International Criminal Court’s decision to halt the first case to come to trial does not diminish the gravity of the charges filed in any of the cases pending before the court or alter the fundamental importance of on-going investigations by the prosecutor’s office, the International Center for Transitional Justice said Monday.

On June 24, the ICC is to hear arguments about the possible release of Thomas Lubanga, who is charged with war crimes for allegedly drafting children as militia members during fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2002-2003. No date has been set for the court issuing its ruling. The prosecution and the defense will have the right to appeal.

Earlier, the court ruled that the prosecution was obliged to share with the defense more than 200 documents that may contain information supporting Mr. Lubanga’s claim of innocence. That evidence was originally gathered by the United Nations from sources that have not waived their confidentiality. The narrowness of the charges against him may render his case vulnerable in the light of such challenges.

“I urge the court, the prosecutor’s office, the defense and the UN to find a way to use these documents in a way that is consistent with a fair trial,” said Juan E. Méndez, president of the ICTJ. “These are early days for the court, and every party is exploring new ground.”

The ICTJ sees the role of the court as an institution is to guarantee fair trials for persons charged with such serious crimes, and the vigilance of the judges is to be welcomed. The credibility of the ICC as a permanent institution does not rest on the outcome of any particular case.

The ICTJ supports the prosecutor office’s continued investigations into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the DRC, Sudan and other states, where states do not exercise such a responsibility themselves.

In a formal statement earlier this month to the UN Security Council, the prosecutor of the ICC said he would soon seek new arrest warrants for serious crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan over the last five years.

The ICTJ believes the prosecutor’s office should consider the possible impact of an arrest warrant. But this does not mean the court should avoid taking action against people – including heads of state – powerful enough to threaten mayhem. As an independent body, the prosecutor’s office must weigh these factors carefully and ultimately take these decisions independently.

In Sudan, targets of potential new warrants may threaten to disrupt humanitarian missions or peace initiatives.

“These threats are inevitable, but it would be a mistake to yield to that kind of blackmail,” said Mr. Méndez. “International justice mechanisms can serve the cause of peace, but only if we let them work as instruments of justice.”

Justice a threat to peace in Darfur?
Sudan Tribune
by Wasil Ali
June 30, 2008

(WASHINGTON) — The statements by the former US special envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios about the danger posed by the indictments of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to the stability of Sudan reignited debate on whether justice and peace can go together.

Natsios said at a forum organized by the US Institute for Peace on Sudan that if the ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo goes ahead with his plans to charge senior Sudanese officials as expected “it will drive the country closer to dissolution”.

The former US diplomat disclosed a recent meeting he had with Ocampo in which he tried to convince him of this point of view with no success. In the meeting the ICC prosecutor stressed that his duty is to do justice and cannot be part of diplomatic initiatives on Darfur.

The ICC prosecutor is due to present evidence on a new case to the judges within the coming weeks. His condemnation of the Sudanese state apparatus in his UN Security Council report gave the impression that senior officials may be charged next month. Some observers have speculated that even the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir is target for prosecution.

Natsios said that there are no realistic prospects that any of the individuals indicted by the ICC will face trial. He further said that ICC arrest warrants against Lord Resistance army (LRA) leaders in Northern Uganda are an obstacle to peace.
The former US envoy appeared to favor maintaining the status quo in Sudan to prevent a Somalia like style scenario that could be caused by the ICC. Natsios has previously called for working with the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) to prevent collapse of the North-South peace agreement and any harsh response against Darfuris if placed under too much pressure.

John Prendergast, a former Clinton administration official and Co-Chair of the ENOUGH Project dismissed Natsios warnings about disintegration of Sudan as a result of ICC investigations.

“Natsios grossly distorts the objectives of the ICC. He has been peddling the same line about the imminent dissolution of Sudan for years” Prendergast said.

“To argue that the ICC’s attempt to break the cycle of impunity will destroy the country is hysterical and an insult to all the Sudanese people who want some kind of justice for the crimes the regime has committed” he added.

Professor Eric Reeves who publishes extensively on Sudan and a longtime critic of Natsios as a special envoy said that the latter is “incapable of understanding either the National Islamic Front (NIF) regime in Khartoum or the urgent claims of justice for Darfur”.

“His evident wish that the ICC cease and desist in its pursuit of justice is nothing more than the crudest accommodation of evil in the name of Sudan’s stability, a stability that is based entirely on the NIF’s ruthless control of the military and security forces in the country” he stressed.

But maintaining the status quo in Sudan to prevent a worst scenario has some merit according to Diaa Al-Deen Bilal from the pro-government daily Al-Rayaam.

“This is a unique situation different from anything that the government has ever faced. It is not their political agenda that is targeted but rather them as individuals.

Even the president is a target. In their eyes this is a threat to their existence” he said.

The reaction of the Sudanese government to naming of new suspects is not an easy prediction by any means. Some have expressed fears that they may resort to restricting humanitarian work in the war ravaged region of Darfur or placing more obstacles to the deployment of the hybrid United Nations-African Union (UNAMID) peacekeeping force.

Alex De Waal, a renowned Sudan expert and Julie Flint, co-author of “Darfur: A Short History of a Long War” have both argued in a series of articles published recently in the Guardian and Washington Post that UNAMID deployment and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) should be a priority over punishing war crimes in Darfur.

“We support accountability for the crimes committed in Darfur, including at the highest levels. But prosecutions must be in the interests of the victims. Few would dispute that their interests are served today by strengthening the protection and peacekeeping force of the joint U.N.-African Union mission” De Waal and Flint said.

“The interests of all Sudanese are served by working with the government to sustain the north-south peace agreement and trying to ensure that democratic elections are held next year to return a government with genuine popular support” the co-authors emphasized.

However Anne Bartlett, Director of the Darfur Centre for Human Rights and Development based in London contend that working with the NCP is a fruitless strategy.

“It is a fallacy to think that being nice to the Government of Sudan will produce results….the NCP are master manipulators of the truth and have no interest whatsoever in cooperating with UNAMID, Mr. Ocampo or anyone else for that matter, unless their options are shut off” Bartlett said in her article “Darfur: Truth or Fiction”.

Professor Reeves also echoed Bartlett conclusions and said that “defense of the status quo represents precisely the kind of international reassurance that will sustain the NIF in its ruthless and murderous survivalism”.

But the central and very basic question has often been raised in similar debates. Is there a way to stop the ICC investigations in Darfur? Is this something the UNSC can do?

Article 16 of the Rome Statue which is the ICC’s Bible states that the UNSC has the power to request a deferral of an investigation or prosecution for a period of 12 months in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII.

But Professor Daniel Nsereko in his paper named “The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council” pointed out that invoking Article 16 is highly unlikely because referring a situation to the ICC “means that the Council now deems judicial action against the alleged disturbers of the peace to be appropriate”.

Politically speaking UNSC members such as UK and France are unlikely to endorse any deferral of Darfur investigations as it would set a precedent and may likely be viewed as sending wrong message to war crimes perpetrators.

So as it stands now the ICC is a reality from which there is no escape and Sudan, along with other countries in the international community, has to factor it in any Darfur peace initiatives.

The AU negotiator in Darfur Salim Ahmed Salim speaking to reporters at the UN headquarters last week said that while “impunity must never be allowed to prevail the timing of any decision becomes important”.

Dr James Smith, Chief Executive of the Aegis Trust responding to Natsios’s assertions on the ICC role in Darfur said that “the ICC indictments are coming whether diplomats like it or not. Whether they aid or hinder peace is a calculation for the international community”.

“Either the indictments can be used as a lever to undermine international and domestic support for the architects of the Darfur crisis, or they can be shelved under threat that war criminals will behave even worse than they already have done” Smith added.

The fundamental argument in favor of the ICC is that it prevents commission of further crimes in any part of the world.

Many would remember the scene in the movie ‘Hotel Rwanda’ where hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina makes well calculated blackmail of the Hutu army general, Augustin Bizimungu by telling him that he is in danger of being tried as a war criminal.

Rusesabagina promised to testify in favor of Bizimungu if he helps him move some refugees safely to the hotel. The trick worked but the Rwandan general was ultimately arrested and transferred to the War Crimes Tribunal in Tanzania.
But De Waal, chief architect of the ailing Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) and Flint said in Washington Post article titled ‘Justice off Course in Darfur’ that “history shows that dictators often learn that power is their only protection and that nothing, and no one, can be allowed to stand in the way”.

Natsios put forward a similar argument saying that Zimbabwean leader fear of going on trial is preventing a peaceful settlement in the country. He cited the “Charles Taylor factor [Liberian ex-president]”.

However Smith from Aegis Trust noted that “generals responsible for recent violence [in Zimbabwe] were also responsible for massacres in Matabeleland in the 1980’s”.

“Never held to account, the lesson they learned 25 years ago was that they could use mass murder to maintain power and get away with it” he said.

Sara Darehshori Senior Counsel in the International Justice Program at Human rights Watch (HRW) stressed that the “culture of impunity” constitute a far more danger than the ICC arrest warrant.

“Silence on accountability emboldens parties to a conflict to continue to commit serious crimes” she said.

Some analysts have also mentioned that vulnerable Darfuri refugees living in camps could also face repercussions from Khartoum.

But Hussein Abu-Sharati, the spokesperson of Darfur displaced and refugees at the Kalma camp in South Darfur, with some 90,000 residents, said “there is no alternative to prosecuting the Darfur criminals before any peace settlement. All of the displaced and refugees support punishment of the criminals”.

Asked about possible retaliation from government following the naming new Darfur suspects he said “the Sudanese government routinely carries out retaliation against us. We fear no one but god”.

On the Sudanese political front some are bracing for further restrictions of freedoms when senior NCP officials find themselves directly threatened. Yet some see a window of opportunity in the ICC.

Ala’a Al-Deen Bashir a political analyst from the daily Al-Sahafa think that ICC indictments might be helpful.

“There are changes happening as we speak within the Sudanese government and the NCP. There are some moderates within the NCP in the shadows who have been sidelined by the hardliners” Bashir said.

Bashir said that he expects “short term political congestion” after naming the new suspects. He also noted that the ordinary Sudanese has little interest in issue of the ICC given the pressing daily needs to make a living.

“We will see a huge media campaign against the ICC and portraying it as an agent of Western powers. The only problem is that this kind of strategy has been overused during the NCP years in power. At the same time the policies of poverty and injustice will make them less sympathetic with the government” he said.

The political analyst pointed out that all Sudanese political forces are supportive of the ICC with the exception of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) led by Mohamed Osman Al-Mirghani.

The list of supporters also includes even the partners in the government of National Unity Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM).

The Sudanese foreign minister Deng Alor urged the government to comply with the UNSC resolution on the ICC.

“I am not talking as a minister of foreign affairs. In this particular issue I’m speaking as SPLM and SPLM calls for cooperation. That’s what I said in my briefing with the ambassadors," Alor told reporters earlier this month on the sidelines of a visit by the UN Security Council (UNSC) to Khartoum.

Alor’s position angered NCP officials and some pro-government columnists accused him of straying from the government’s official position.

Mariam Al-Mahdi, a leading figure in the Umma Party, the largest Northern opposition party in Sudan with a large base in Darfur blamed the government for not taking the ICC issue seriously.

“The Sudanese authorities are taking this matter very lightly. The NCP adopted a policy of ignoring it and treating it as something that does not exist. However the truth of the matter that the ICC is real with a direct impact on the NCP” she said.

Al-Mahdi, daughter of the former Prime Minister Sadiq Al-Mahdi, said that the Umma party supported UNSC resolution 1593 referring he situation in Darfur to the ICC.

“We [Umma Party] supported resolution 1593 knowing its complications that comes with it. The Darfur crisis is caused by people who do not really care about human rights or the need to ending violations that created this humanitarian disaster” she said.

The Umma party official also said that the concept of transitional justice is missing in Sudan and that the existence of the ICC would help fill that void. She called on the government to deal with the ICC from a “legal and technical perspective” and two hand the two suspects Haroun and Kushayb.

“We know that this court is meant with justice and handles specific cases. Using political propaganda and ‘clowning’ is not the way forward” she warned.

De Waal and Flint also threw a new factor into their claim by saying that the ICC is relying on questionable and “circumstantial” evidence. They both claim that the situation in Darfur is not as bad as the ICC prosecutor tried to portray it in his report to the UNSC this month.

They also said that “Several senior ICC staff members have quit, fearful of eventually having to defend an indefensible position” without naming them.
However an ICC official who spoke to Sudan Tribune expressed surprise over this statement.

“The only senior member to leave was Serge Brammertz who was appointed to lead the probe into the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri” the official said on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press.

It is also ironic that 3 years ago when the ICC investigations started in Darfur war crimes Ocampo was under heavy criticism from international figures including UN officials for moving too slowly. But the ICC prosecutor at the time responding to pressure said that he has to conduct his investigation “in a thorough and fair manner”.

But today Ocampo seems under pressure to place his prosecutions on hold. It is not clear whether he will actually succumb and delay his July’s announcement.

In the meanwhile the mounting pressure by the UNSC, EU and G-8 on the defiant Khartoum to cooperate with the ICC seems to have paid off, at least partially.

This week a senior Sudanese official speaking to Sudan Tribune on condition of anonymity made a surprise revelation that the leadership of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) “is getting very nervous over the upcoming announcement by the ICC of new suspects”.

He said that the NCP, with recommendation from state minister for foreign affairs Ali Karti, is considering handing over two Darfur suspects Haroun and Kushayb to the ICC “as a protection from further indictments”.

The official said that president Al-Bashir appeared to be in agreement with the proposal as well as others who were present but that 2nd Vice President Ali Osman Taha blocked the proposal saying it is a violation of Sudan’s sovereignty.

But realistically, even if the proposal was to go through, the ICC could not have accepted such a bargain which would undermine its credibility.

The immediate threat to those Sudanese officials who end up being charged is when travel abroad.

The plan to divert a plane carrying one of the Darfur suspects, Ahmed Haroun, on his way to Saudi Arabia in December to perform the annual Islamic pilgrimage was likely to have motivated Karti’s proposal.

The most worrying aspect of the plan to Sudanese officials was that a number of countries took part in the plan including one of Sudan’s neighbors. Saudi Arabia, which maintains good relations with Sudan, was made aware of the plan.

Sudan’s envoy to the UN Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Mahmood told Reuters that it was “especially infuriating” that other countries were willing to help the ICC in the failed operation.

The moral of the story to Sudanese officials is clear; travelling abroad pose a risk of arrest regardless of the destination.

In the coming weeks and months the ICC will become the focus of the international community. The identities of the new suspects are anxiously awaited to determine the full impact on the explosive and unpredictable East African nation.

[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

DR Congo ex-militia chief seeks release pending trial
AFP
June 24, 2008

THE HAGUE (AFP) — Former Democratic Republic of Congo militia chief Thomas Lubanga Dyilo could be granted a release from detention next week after a delay in his war crimes trial, it emerged from a court hearing Tuesday.

Presiding judge Adrian Fulford said the International Criminal Court (ICC) would hand down a written judgment in an application for Lubanga's release "hopefully during the course of next week".

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.

But as his lawyers argued Tuesday for his immediate release, the prosecution warned the delay in the proceedings could be short.

"The office of the prosecutor (Luis Moreno-Ocampo) is highly confident that the problem will be resolved in the coming weeks and the trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo will start in September," it said in a statement.

Lubanga's lawyer Catherine Mabille told the court there was no legal basis for her client to be kept in detention. "We are requesting his immediate release," she said.

The tribunal's decision to stay the proceedings, over alleged abuses by the prosecution, provided a legal basis for his release from custody, Mabille argued.

But Ekkehard Withopf, for the prosecution, said: "There is no legal basis for the request."

A lawyer for Lubanga's alleged victims cautioned against his release.

"This case is a ball of fire that could set Ituri (a province of the DR Congo) on fire," Catherine Bapita Buyangandu told the three judges.

"The victims are afraid of vengeance. Lubanga is a hero in his community."

Lubanga's war crimes trial is the first to be heard by the ICC, but the tribunal announced on June 13 that it was postponing Monday's scheduled start.

This followed complaints by the defence that the prosecution was withholding evidence sourced from the United Nations and other non-governmental bodies in Congo.

The court found the prosecution had wrongly used a confidentiality allowance to receive information it then failed to share with the defence.

This "misuse" prevented Lubanga preparing a proper defence, it said, with more than 200 potentially exculpatory documents not disclosed.

Mabille claimed the prosecution's failure to give the defence access to the UN-sourced documents had implications "for the very functioning of international justice".

"What is the purpose of international justice -- is it to search for the truth or is it to search for what the UN would want us to (think)?" she asked.

"If sources can dictate to us the policy they want us to pursue, what does that mean for the ... independence of judges and the prosecution?"

A letter from the UN offered to give the trial judges access to the disputed documents under tight conditions. The mass of documents could be reviewed under UN supervision, without the judges being allowed to make notes in the review room.

But Fulford said such an arrangement might not be workable, as it would depend on the judges' "ability to memorise large quantities of information".

Dressed smartly in a dark suit, white shirt and blue tie, the former rebel chief sat quietly at the back of the courtroom listening to the arguments under constant guard.

ICC charges DR Congo 'warlords'
BBC News
June 27, 2008

Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in the Hague have charged two Congolese militia leaders with war crimes.

Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui are accused of planning and ordering an attack, in which more than 200 villagers were allegedly killed.

Reports say some of the victims were burned to death, and many women were forced to become sex slaves.

This is only the second case to be launched by the court, set up in 2002.

The first trial, of another Congolese militia leader, Thomas Lubanga, has been suspended over concerns that evidence was withheld from the defence.

Decision

Mr Lubanga, who was on the other side of the Ituri conflict, may be released over concerns that the defence was denied access to some evidence.

Defence lawyers for Mr Katanga and Mr Ngudjolo have asked judges to suspend the case against them as the prosecution is using the same evidence.

However, the court has decided to go ahead with the hearing, as the proceedings are not as advanced.

A "confirmation of charges" is now set to take place at which evidence will be presented to support the charges, which include war crimes and crimes against humanity. These include murder, sexual slavery, rape, inhumane acts and recruiting child soldiers.

At the end of this process the court will have 60 days in which to decide whether or not to go to trial.

"Over 200 children, women, elderly and civilian men were killed," in the north-eastern village of Bogoro, said Deputy Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

The Ituri conflict, which raged well after a wider peace accord officially ended Congo's 1998-2003 war, pitted foreign-backed militias from the Hema and Lendu ethnic groups against one another.

Mr Katanga headed the Patriotic Forces of Resistance of Ituri (FRPI), while Mr Ngudjolo led the allied Front of Nationalists and Integrationists (FPI) militia.

The ICC, based in The Hague, was set up in 2002 as the world's first permanent war crimes court.

It was designed to end the need for various ad hoc war crimes courts - including the chambers created to deal with war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda.

Belgian court clears way for Bemba transfer to war crimes court
AFP
July 1, 2008

BRUSSELS (AFP) — A Belgian court on Tuesday cleared the way for former Democratic Republic of Congo rebel leader Jean-Pierre Bemba to be transferred to The Hague to face war crimes charges.

Belgium's highest court rejected a charge by Bemba's lawyers that the legal procedures followed since his arrest in Brussels in May had been irregular.

Bemba's transfer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has been suspended pending the court decision.

It is now expected to take place within days.

Bemba was arrested in the Belgian capital on May 24 on a warrant from the ICC and faces four charges of war crimes and two of crimes against humanity in the Central African Republic (CAR).

The former Congolese vice president, currently being held at a prison in Brussels, is blamed for a series of rapes and torture said by victims to have been committed by his men between 2002 and 2003, when his forces fought a coup attempt in CAR at the behest of then president Ange-Felix Patasse.

Bemba, 45, heads a vast business empire and had been living in exile in Portugal, where he fled under United Nations protection following a shoot-out with the presidential guard in Congo which killed more than 200 people in March 2007.

That followed defeat to his fierce rival and current Congolese President Joseph Kabila in the 2006 elections.

Earlier in the day his lawyer Aime Kilolo Musamba said Bemba would ask the UN Security Council to suspend his case.

"The Security Council could demand a suspension (of the legal process) for somebody who has done a lot of work for peace," in Congo, the lawyer told AFP on the margins of the court hearing in Brussels, where Bemba is being held.

"Jean-Pierre Bemba has no fear of the ICC. He is totally sure of his innocence," said Kilolo, who said the link between Bemba and the groups responsible for the crimes had not been established, with the militias involved at the time responding to the Central African Republic authorities.

"For us the matter has been politicised. The complaint comes from those close to President Kabila", Fyfy Osambia, an official from Bemba's Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), said in Brussels.

"We want him to present himself in front of the ICC as a free man, because we know he will be acquitted," she added.

International court orders Congolese warlord freed
AP
July 2, 2008

THE HAGUE, Netherlands: The International Criminal Court on Wednesday ordered the release of the first suspect it took into custody, saying he cannot get a fair trial because prosecutors are withholding evidence.

The order to free Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga was a major blow to prosecutors. His trial was to be the first at the court focusing solely on the use of child soldiers.

Prosecutors immediately filed an appeal, which will keep Lubanga in custody for at least five days while the court decides what to do next.

His landmark trial was to have been the first at the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal, but the proceeding was suspended before it began last month after the prosecution refused to release documents provided by the United Nations that could help clear Lubanga.

He is charged with conscripting and sending children under age 15 to fight in bloody conflicts in Congo's Ituri region in 2002-03.

In their order, a three-judge panel said that "in the absence of the prospect of a trial, the accused cannot be held in custody." They added that as the situation stood, "a fair trial of the accused is impossible, and the entire justification for his detention has been removed."

In appealing against his release, prosecutors said Lubanga could still get a fair trial and urged that the proceeding go forward.

"The Prosecutor strongly believes that the need to do justice for the victims in ... Congo and to respect a fair trial for Thomas Lubanga can and must be harmonized," prosecutors said in a statement. "The ICC is a permanent and global institution. It must be based on the highest standards of law."

Chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo expressed confidence that Lubanga would stand trial at the Hague-based court.

Other cases currently under way at the court could run into the same kind of turmoil if prosecutors in those cases are relying on similar confidential documents.

"Our understanding is that the problem might be pervasive," said Geraldine Mattioli of Human Rights Watch. "This is a practice that was pretty widespread at the beginning of the court's operations."

The United Nations gave prosecutors many documents only on the condition they remain confidential.

In a letter read at a hearing last week, U.N. Undersecretary-General for Legal Affairs Nicolas Michel offered to let judges look through the documents, but only in a closed room in the presence of a U.N. official. They would be barred from making copies or taking notes, but could jot down "their thoughts" after leaving the room, the letter said.

Presiding judge Adrian Fulford rejected that offer as unworkable.

Michael Scharf, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has studied international war crimes tribunals, predicted the U.N. will make a "more reasonable" proposal "that will be accepted by the judges before Lubanga is ever set free and that Lubanga's trial will proceed after this matter is resolved."

"The U.N. knows the stakes are far too high not to try very hard to come up with an acceptable compromise with the judges," he said via an e-mail.

Prosecutors acknowledge that about half of the more than 200 documents they are withholding contain evidence that could help support Lubanga's innocence or mitigate his guilt.

Lubanga is founder of the Union of Congolese Patriots and prosecutors charge he swelled the ranks of its armed wing with child soldiers at a time when thousands of people were being killed, maimed or raped in brutal ethnic warfare.

Lawyers representing victims of atrocities in Congo warned in court last week that releasing Lubanga without a trial could unleash "a fireball" in the Ituri region where his support is based.

The three-judge panel said it took those fears into account when making the decision.

The court is also dealing with cases involving atrocities in Darfur, the Central African Republic and Uganda, but only has suspects from Congo in its custody.

Surrender of Jean-Pierre Bemba to the International Criminal Court
ICC Press Release
July 3, 2008

Situation: Central African Republic
Case: The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo

Today, 3 July 2008, the Belgian authorities surrendered and transferred Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, to the International Criminal Court. He arrived at 12:45 at the detention centre of the Court.

"The Court appreciates the steps taken by the Belgian authorities in the enforcement of the warrant of arrest, surrender and transfer of Mr Bemba, as well as the cooperation of the Dutch authorities to transport him to the detention centre," said the Registrar Ms Silvana Arbia.

Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, alleged national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), aged about 45 years old, was arrested on 24 May 2008 by the Belgian authorities following a Court’s warrant of arrest was issued under seal on 23 May. Furthermore, on 10 June, the judges of Pre-Trial Chamber III requested the Kingdom of Belgium to surrender Bemba Gombo to the Court and a second warrant of arrest was issued replacing the previous one.

A Court’s official witnessed the handover and received all pertinent documents from the Belgian authorities. Mr Bemba Gombo was twice examined by doctors in Brussels, before departure and upon his arrival at the prison. Doctors confirmed that he is in good health. He was admitted to the detention centre, informed of his rights, including the right to choose counsel from the list of counsels established by the Registrar.

Mr Bemba, President and Commander in Chief of the Mouvement de libération du Congo (MLC), is alleged to be criminally responsible for five counts of war crimes and three counts of crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the Central African Republic from 25 October 2002 to 15 March 2003.

Thus Jean-Pierre Bemba is allegedly criminally responsible, jointly with another person or through other persons, within the meaning of article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute, for:

- three counts of crimes against humanity: rape (article 7(1)(g)), torture (article 7(1)(f)), and murder (article 7(1)(a));

- five counts of war crimes: rape (article 8(2)(e)(vi)), torture (article 8(2)(c)(i)), committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment (article 8(2)(c)(ii)), pillaging a town or place (article 8(2)(e)(v)), and murder (article 8(2)(c)(i)).

Mr Bemba’s first appearance will be announced in due course.

International Criminal Court Orders Former Congo Rebel Leader's Release
Voice of America News
James Butty
July 3, 2008

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has ordered the release of former Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga on the grounds that he cannot get a fair trial. The prosecutors have been given five days to appeal his release. Lubanga is accused of using child soldiers in clashes involving his Union of Congolese Patriots militia during 2002 and 2003 in the Democratic Republic of Congo's Ituri District.

His trial was suspended last month after the court ruled that prosecutors inhibited his defense team by refusing to share documents that could help establish his innocence. The trial would have been the first at the ICC focusing solely on the use of child soldiers.

Lubanga supporters in Bunia, DR Congo, told VOA they hope Lubanga's release would focus world attention on what they called the real war criminals in the region.

Param-Preet Singh is counsel with the International Justice Program at the New York-based Human Rights Watch. She told VOA the Lubanga trial proves the ICC is a court of fair trial.

"I think it's clear that the trial chamber's decision to suspend the trial is a disappointment for the victims of Lubanga's alleged crimes because they've been deprived of an opportunity to have the crimes allegedly committed against them addressed by the court. But at the same time, this court is about fair trial; it's not just about prosecution, and indeed it would have been a bigger injustice to move forward with what would have an unjust trial," she said.

Singh said it is wrong for Lubanga supporters to think that the court's order to free him is proof that he did not commit any war crimes.

"I don't think that's accurate because the court has indeed said that the underlying grounds for the arrest warrant are still valid. So there's still reasonable ground to believe that Thomas Lubanga committed the crimes alleged against him. The recent decision is because of a procedural problem in the disclosure of key evidence," Singh said.

She explained the reason behind the court's decision that a fair trial for Mr. Lubanga would not be possible.

"There's a provision in the Rome Statute of the court that basically allows the prosecution to collect evidence confidentially from certain sources. But because it has been collected confidentially, the only way that they can disclose that information to the court or the defense is if they have permission from the United Nations or other providers to do so. The problem is in this case they don't have permission from the United Nations," she said.

Supporters of Mr. Lubanga in Bunia, DR Congo, told VOA they were happy with the court's decision to order his release. They said the charge that Lubanga recruited children to fight is untrue. On the contrary, Lubanga supporters said the children in question were orphans who sought protection from Lubanga.

Singh said whether orphans or not, it is never a good thing to recruit children to fight in conflicts.

"Ultimately it's up to the court to decide whether or not that is indeed true. But at the end of the day children under the age of 15 cannot be used to participate actively in hostilities regardless of whether or not they were recruited or enlisted or whatever," she said.

She said there are both positive and negative implications from the Lubanga trial.

"Certainly the impact on ethnic tensions and perceptions in Ituri that's something that cannot be discounted. And that's something that we raised with the International Criminal Court that it is really important to explain what's going on in The Hague to affected communities in Ituri to really convey that this is not an acquittal for Lubanga. He is not being declared innocent by the court but rather it's a technicality," Singh said.

Singh said Human Rights Watch has collected information that suggests that Lubanga may be guilty of certain crimes, including child recruitment. She said her organization also collected information that suggests that people higher up in the chain of command for Lubanga's rebel movement should also be prosecuted.

She said the Lubanga trial sends a powerful message about the role of the ICC in its attempt to prosecute war criminals.

"I think the message this case sends ultimately is a positive message, which is this court is not a court about prosecution at any cause. It's a court a of fair trial, and the judges of the court would make sure that that principle is strictly adhered to in proceedings before it," Singh said.

DRC Rebel Leader Bemba Transferred to Hague Court
Voice of America News
July 3, 2008

Officials with the International Criminal Court say former Congolese rebel leader Jean Pierre Bemba has been transferred to the Hague to face war crimes charges.

ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo says Bemba was transferred Thursday to the Netherlands from Belgium, where he was arrested in May.

The court says Bemba's forces attacked civilians and committed acts of rape, torture, and pillaging in the Central African Republic during 2002 and 2003. CAR President Ange-Felix Patasse had invited Bemba's group into the country to help put down a coup attempt.

Bemba is one of four former Congolese militia leaders being held by the court. One of the others, Thomas Lubanga, remains in detention pending an appeal of a court order Wednesday that he be released. Lubanga is accused of using child soldiers to fight alongside his Union of Congolese Patriots militia during 2002 and 2003.

His trial was suspended last month after the court ruled that prosecutors inhibited his defense team.

Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo said Thursday that he remained confident justice for the militiamen's victims would come.

Bemba served as one of the Democratic Republic of Congo's four vice presidents following the end of the country's civil war in 2003. He ran for president in 2006, coming in second behind incumbent Joseph Kabila.

Bemba left the DRC for Portugal in April 2007 after clashes between his militia and government troops killed more than 200 people.

[back to contents]

Uganda (ICC)

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

Uganda Rebel Leader to Sign Final Peace Deal
Voice of America
By Peter Clottey
April 9, 2008

Uganda’s rebel Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) peace negotiation team will today (Wednesday) hand over documents to rebel commander Joseph Kony to sign his side of the final peace deal. This comes after the United States Department of State gave visas to members of the rebel negotiating team to travel to the United Nations to seek the removal of the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants against the top leaders of the LRA. The rebels said that although Kony will sign the final peace deal, they would not disarm until the arrest warrants are removed.

The final peace deal, which will also be signed by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni tomorrow (Thursday) will end over two decades of LRA insurgency in northern Uganda. David Matsanga is the leader of the LRA rebel delegation. From the Southern Sudanese capital, Juba he tells reporter Peter Clottey that all is set for the rebel commander to sign the final peace deal.

"Two weeks ago general Joseph Kony called me and told me to postpone the signing of the final peace agreement that we had been negotiated and said we should sign this agreement himself. Should be able to sign this agreement in Rikwangba, but not any other person and that he will sign this agreement and that is all," Matsanga pointed out.

He said a final peace agreement with President Yoweri Museveni’s government would go a long way in showing the seriousness of the LRA towards finding a lasting solution to the northern Uganda conflict.

"I want to make it very clear to the world that this agreement has given the LRA the opportunity, and we shall remove the LRA from the list of the terrorist organizations. We have stopped general Joseph Kony and others to be taken to The Hague, we have managed to achieve the livestock of the people of Uganda to be retuned we have managed to secure UPDF (Uganda People’s Defense Forces) to get out of the soil of Sudan, and return to Uganda. We have managed to create inclusiveness, and participation in the government of Uganda because the people of northern Uganda has been marginalized by Museveni’s government for a long time," he said.

Matsanga said visas have been granted to members of his negotiating team to travel to the United Nations to seek the removal of the ICC arrest warrants against the top leadership of the LRA.

"Oh yes, my delegation has bargained and negotiated and we have actually defeated the Uganda government in negotiations…we secured several things that had never been there in Uganda…I want to tell the world that whether tomorrow or whatever it is we shall go to the United Nations Security Council and put our case and that is why we want the warrants to be lifted," Matsanga noted.

He reiterated the readiness of rebel commander Joseph Kony to sign the final peace deal, which would effectively end the rebels over two decades of insurgency.

"I want to tell you categorically that general Joseph Kony talked to me, he assured me and he told me to postpone the date up to the 10th. I postponed the date and I told Riek Marchar and told everybody that this is what general Joseph Kony has said…after signing the agreement, general Joseph Kony has to sit down with his people and they will tell him about Mato Put (Uganda’s traditional method of justice), and about what is going to happen in Uganda," he said.

Uganda rebel leader delays peace deal signing: top mediator
AFP
April 10, 2008

Uganda's top rebel leader Joseph Kony has requested further consultations before signing a peace agreement to end one of Africa's longest conflicts, the chief mediator said Thursday.

Speaking from the venue near the south Sudanese jungle town of Ri-Kwangba, where Kony was initially scheduled to sign at midday, Riek Machar said Kony had asked for more time to confer with elders from northern Uganda and mediators.

"Since he's now talking to cultural leaders and bishops, it may take time, then he will have a meeting with me and that too will take time," the south Sudanese vice president said.

"I expect it tomorrow," Machar said, when asked when the signing would take place.

Kony -- whose group is notorious for raping and mutilating civilians, enlisting child soldiers and massacring thousands -- has been in hiding to avoid a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Top LRA commanders have met on the other side of the Ri-Kwangba area's border with the Democratic Republic of Congo, but Kony was reportedly spotted recently in the neighbouring Central African Republic.

Kony's people were suspected of gang-raping women, taking dozens hostage and attacking villages, according to a draft UN report.

Ugandan rebels last week asked mediators to delay the signing of the peace agreement citing the inadequate nature of facilities such as toilets in their camp in Ri-Kwangba. Machar dismissed these allegations as "rubbish", insisting that southern Sudan was providing food and facilities.

Twenty years of fighting have left tens of thousands dead and displaced two million people, mainly in northern Uganda. Several thousands have been killed in southern Sudan where the LRA have camps.

Church and rights groups said the expected signing had raised hope of lasting stability in the region.

"War must stop forever. That is my expectation and that is the expectation of the people of northern Uganda and even the government," said Archbishop John Odama of Gulu diocese.

While welcoming the possible deal, Amnesty International expressed reservations on the its failure to address impunity.

"But we have serious concerns about the solutions that are being put forward... because they're not a comprehensive plan," said Jonathan O'Donohue, legal adviser for AI's International Justice Project.

A ceasefire was struck in August 2006, paving the way for peace talks in South Sudan capital Juba that have dragged on for more than a year and a half.

A permanent ceasefire signed in February is expected to take effect 24 hours after the signing of the final accord.

The talks were delayed by the LRA's insistence that ICC warrants against Kony and three of his top lieutenants be lifted before an agreement is signed. However, even with an agreement, Kony is not expected to return to Kampala.

While the Ugandan government has not requested such a move from The Hague-based tribunal, it has been vocal in advocating home-grown solutions to bring former rebels to justice.

Observers argue the government has a vested interest in scuppering too much disclosure at an international tribunal, as it may end up facing war crimes for forcibly displacing hundreds of thousands and killing civilians.

The rebels accuse the Ugandan People's Defence Force of carrying out abuses, but the army says it routinely punishes soldiers convicted of war crimes.

The conflict has raged since 1988, when Kony, a semi-illiterate former altar boy, took charge of a two-year-old regional rebellion among northern Uganda's ethnic Acholi minority.

The original rebellion was started in 1986 by Holy Spirit Movement commander Alice Lakwena, who told her fighters she could rely on magic potions to turn enemy bullets into stones.

Since the signing of the truce agreement almost two years ago, the war-scarred east African nation has engaged in aggressive reforms to attract investors and revamp its image.

Patience of LRA Victims Wearing Thin
IWPR
By Patrick Okino
April 10, 2008

With some apprehension, I began my journey to my home village, a place I had not been ever since the rebel war in northern Uganda began many years ago.

My trip took me first, however, to the Barlonyo refugee camp, north of Lira where the rebel Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, had brutally massacred 300 people in 2004.

I wanted to talk with survivors about the rebel leader Joseph Kony, who many doubted would sign a negotiated peace agreement following reports that he had retreated to the Central African Republic.

>But I began to think that peace was around the corner as I saw former refugees preparing fields for the year’s first planting following the recent rains.

Children walked happily along the road side and waved excitedly at the sight of my motorcycle – something most had not seen in years.

I stopped at the Ogur trading centre, and as I ordered a bottle of soda, I recalled that this place was once unreachable because of rebel patrols and attacks just a few kilometres from Lira.

Along the roads I saw fields of millet, beans, soy beans, and sorghum – crops that had not been planted during the 20-year war.

Nearby several people were loudly debating the outcome of the final peace agreement, and most doubted Kony’s sincerity. Few thought he would present himself and sign the accord – delayed now until April 15 in the South Sudan capital of Juba.

"The bible says there is time for everything," said one of the men. "This scripture is coming to pass on Kony and his fighters."

"We are not worried, even if he [Kony] doesn't sign the peace accord, because his haven [Central African Republic] is a thousand kilometres away," said another.

"This area is now [secure] and reachable [for refugees] unlike in 2003 and 2004," said Regina Akullo, 60, as she planted beans.

I sympathised with these people because I have lived through this war and know how it has devastated the region.

As I reached Barlonyo, a Luo word that means "abundant wealth", I expected to see remains of a battlefield. Instead, I saw permanent structures made of bricks and cement, all projects to build a commercial centre and vocational school to honour the dead.

I continued to Amwak, a village 50 km east of Lira and my home village. People there were bitter about the war and Kony, especially since he was still at large in CAR.

"As we speak now, we are not happy with the International Criminal Court, ICC, for letting Kony cross to CAR without being arrested," said my step-brother James Onyanga.

At the peak of the LRA insurgency in 2002, my mother Jusphanti Okino, 65, and my brothers Geoffrey Onyanga and Simon Eluk fled from the village for the safety of Lira.

After three years, however, and before the peace talks began in 2006, they told me they wanted to return home.

"I’m not used to this kind of life where food is purchased on daily basis," my mother told me. "I want to trek back to my home and start cultivating my own."

I was worried about their safety, because just a year earlier, rebels had ambushed a truck near our home, killing eight people and setting both the dead and the truck ablaze.

But they insisted, so I supported them with enough money for transport and food to get them started again. Luckily, they were all right, because the security in the area had improved.

But it had not been so for my grandfather, Erisa Onyanga, 90, and my uncle Peter Eluk, both of whom were killed during the rebel war. They were among the ten people who died during the war, out of the 50 who once lived in our village.

But already, life had turned around for people across the north, including my brother.

"Out of what I harvested this year, I have purchased two bulls to help us in cultivation," my older brother, Geoffrey, told me. "I think if alð goes well I will be `ble to buy mo2e."

Now with peace in the air, I think he will.

Uganda elders try to save talks with rebel Kony
Reuters
By Skye Wheeler and Francis Kwera
April 11, 2008

RI-KWANGBA, Sudan (Reuters) - Elders from northern Uganda tried to meet fugitive rebel leader Joseph Kony on Friday to salvage long-running peace talks after he delayed signing a deal to end one of Africa's longest wars.

The draft agreement between Kony's Lord's Resistance Army and the government appeared to be near collapse after the elusive guerrilla asked mediators to clarify parts of the text on Thursday and then broke with his chief negotiator.

Religious and cultural leaders who went to explain the document failed to find Kony on Thursday at an agreed spot near Ri-Kwangba on the remote and thickly wooded Sudan-Congo border. Early on Friday, they ventured back into the bush to try again.

"The developments of yesterday and today are a challenge to the peace process, nevertheless, the peace process continues," the Ugandan government's top negotiator, Internal Affairs Minister Ruhakana Rugunda, told Reuters.

Asked whether he thought Kony would sign on Friday, Rugunda said: "We need to know more ... there is no clear answer."

Kony's 22-year rebellion killed tens of thousands of people, uprooted 2 million more in northern Uganda and destabilised neighbouring parts of southern Sudan and eastern Congo.

Kony, who is wanted for multiple war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, did not appear at Thursday's planned signing ceremony in Ri-Kwangba.

South Sudan's Vice President Riek Machar, who has chaired talks between the two sides since mid-2006, said the LRA leader was unsure how the government planned to use its courts and traditional reconciliation rituals to counter the ICC warrants.

ICC prosecutors accuse the LRA boss and two deputies of crimes including rape, murder and the abduction of thousands of children to serve as fighters, porters and sex slaves.

Even if Kony does sign a final peace deal, the rebels have vowed never to disarm until the indictments are scrapped.

Uganda peace deal delayed; Govt. team returns to capital
The Hindu News Update Service
April 11, 2008

NABANGA (AP): A final peace deal to end one of Africa's longest wars broke down Friday after a fugitive rebel leader failed to show up in a jungle clearing to sign the agreement and government representatives headed home.

Before leaving this remote area near the Congolese border, chief government negotiator Ruhakana Rugunda said his team was heading back to the Ugandan capital, Kampala, to await further instructions. Rebels and government negotiators had been gathered in a clearing since Thursday waiting for Joseph Kony, who hasn't been seen in public since 2006.

"He did not sign as expected so we're going back and will wait to be informed by the chief mediator of the next steps to be taken," Rugunda said.

When asked whether he believed Kony was committed to peace, Rugunda said: "We are waiting for concrete evidence."

Kony's notoriously vicious Lord's Resistance Army is behind a 20-year insurgency in northern Uganda. The rebels are known for cutting the lips off their victims, abducting child soldiers and turning girls into sex slaves.

Kony and four other members of the rebel high command wanted by the International Criminal Court have gone into hiding. As part of the final deal, Uganda has agreed to approach the ICC and request that the indictments be withdrawn. Any decision to drop the international charges would have to be approved by judges at the court, who would first want to be sure the rebels get a proper trial in Uganda.

Under the deal, those charged with serious crimes during the insurgency would be tried in a special division of Uganda's High Court. Those accused of lesser crimes would be judged according to northern Uganda's traditional justice system, known as Mato Oput.

Mato Oput is a style of mediation that involves a public apology from the offender, who must also give a payment set by local elders _ often in cattle or sheep _ to the victims, or bereaved. In return, victims agree to forgive the accused.

Some human rights groups condemn such punishment as too lenient.

But more than a year of talks between the government and rebels have not yielded much, and were marked by walkouts and accusations of sabotage on both sides.

U.N. officials estimate that the LRA has kidnapped 20,000 children in the past two decades, turning the boys into soldiers and the girls into sex slaves for rebel commanders.

If both sides reach a comprehensive deal, it will be a major breakthrough in pacifying the volatile region comprising northern Uganda, eastern Congo and southern Sudan. Rebels from all three nations operated across the borders with impunity for decades until a peace accord halted Congo's civil war in 2003 and southern Sudanese rebels joined Sudan's government in 2005.

The Lord's Resistance Army was formed from the remnants of a northern Uganda rebellion that began in 1986 after Yoweri Museveni, a southerner, shot his way to power.

Kony mixed northern politics with religious mysticism, declaring himself a Christian prophet fighting to rule this country of 26 million people by the Ten Commandments.

[back to contents]

The Trial of Alberto Fujimori

Fujimori on Trial

Salazar confirms Montesinos’ power in the SIN
Fujimori On Trial
June 25, 2008

Seventy-fourth session. Former military general and National Intelligence Service (SIN) director, Julio Salazar Monroe continued his testimony, answering the questions of Fujimori’s defense lawyer regarding the legality and formality of the work carried out in the SIN.

1. Incidents during the hearing:

Lawyers for the victims’ families believe there could already be an agreement between Fujimori’s and Montesinos’ lawyers.

After Salazar, Alberto Fujimori’s former presidential advisor, Vladimiro Montesinos, will be summoned to testify. The Public Prosecutor (formal accusation, p. 30) indicates Montesinos as the person through whom Fujimori exercised his power over the Colina military detachment.

However, lawyer Carlos Rivera claims he wouldn’t be surprised if there is already some kind of agreement between the two men’s lawyers so that Montesinos does not incriminate Fujimori.

2. Julio Salazar Monroe’s testimony - Salazar answered the extensive questions of Fujimori’s lawyer (who is also his own lawyer), which were based on trying to confirm that the SIN’s work was guided by legality. The most relevant parts of the witness’ testimony were:

Vladimiro Montesinos, link between the SIN and the president

Salazar admitted that between 1991 and 1992 - when he was director of the SIN - he dealt with Fujimori through Montesinos, who was supposedly only a SIN advisor, since the president could not receive him directly on account of his frequent travels.

Vladimiro Montesinos and the management of SIN money

The witness reiterated that it was Fujimori who gave the order to give Montesinos access to Reserve 1 and Reserve 2 in the SIN. Though the witness does not know the exact destination of this money - he was never informed, despite his being SIN director - since the money went to "private actions," he assumes it was used for social work.

Montesinos and SIN meetings

Though Salazar claims that he was not informed on the missions entrusted to Montesinos, he saw the meetings that Montesinos had with government ministers, congressmen, magistrates from the Judicial Power and National Electoral Board, military officials, police officers and other government officials.

When the witness was asked if this policy of Montesinos’ meetings in the SIN was the same in 1991-1992 and 1997-1998, he first responded that yes, the policy was similar. However, after the defense’s reformulation of the question, the witness changed his answer, saying that there was an increase in Montesinos’ meetings.

Montesinos in the National Defense Council: Yes and no

Though Salazar said in the last session that Montesinos had participated in the National Defense Council meetings as SIN advisor, he claimed during this session that Montesinos participated in Superior Intelligence Council meetings, but not in National Defense Council meetings, which were presided by Fujimori. However, he later admitted that Montesinos accompanied Fujimori to the National Defense Council meetings.

Montesinos and military corruption

During the last session, the witness did not know how to clearly explain why three unrelated military officials were included in the analysis group that was personally congratulated by the president, resulting in their promotion. However, during this session Salazar clearly stated that the person who proposed placing these three officials in the analysis group was Vladimiro Montesinos, attributing this corrupt looking gesture to Montesinos.

3. Next session will continue with Julio Salazar Monroe

The session on Friday, June 27 will only take place during the morning. Fujimori’s lawyer will continue his examination of Julio Salazar Monroe, which will be followed by the judges’ questions. Vladimiro Montesinos is expected to testify in the following session on Monday, June 30.

Key Testimony in Fujimori Trial
BBC News
June 30, 2008

Peru's ex-intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos is to testify in the trial of former President Alberto Fujimori, who is accused of human rights abuses.

The judge summoned Mr Montesinos - who is currently serving a jail term for arms smuggling and is alleged to have organised death squads in the 1990s.

Prosecutors hope he will support their case that Mr Fujimori ordered two massacres that killed 25 people.

The former president, who faces up to 30 years in jail, denies the charges.

Correspondents say nobody knows whether Mr Montesinos will testify in favour or against his former boss, or choose to remain silent.

Death squads

Mr Montesinos, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence, was Mr Fujimori's intelligence chief during his 1990-2000 rule.

As such, he was privy to the government's policies and strategy in its war against left-wing rebels.

Mr Fujimori's trial relates to two massacres carried out by a death squad known as La Colina, in which a total of 25 people died.

In 1991, La Colina raided a barbecue in a poor suburb of Lima known as Barrios Altos and killed 15 people.

The following year, they kidnapped nine students and a professor.

They were taken away from the campus and summarily executed. Their remains were later found in an unmarked grave.

It is alleged the death squad was under the direct command of the Peruvian president.

Mr Fujimori is also charged with ordering the illegal detention and interrogation of a prominent journalist, Gustavo Gorriti, and businessman Samuel Dyer, in 1992.

Vladimiro Montesinos Says Crimes can be Committed for Matters of State
Fujimori on Trial
June 30, 2008

Seventy-sixth session. Vladimiro Montesinos Torres decided to give his testimony instead of invoking his right to silence, in order to proclaim that Fujimori had no responsibility for the crimes he is accused of. But after the Public Prosecutor’s examination, Montesinos invoked his right to silence, concluding his testimony.

1. Vladimiro Montesinos Torres’ testimony. Montesinos responded defensively to the first questions of Public Prosecutor Antonio Peláez Bardales, calling himself a "former intelligence official" and "President Fujimori’s subordinate." According to Montesinos, his trial for treason and consequent ban on entering military buildings for 16 years was fictitious, and said he gave his all as a military intelligence officer. The most interesting parts of Montesinos’ testimony were:

Montesinos admitted that crimes can be committed for matters of state
Vladimiro Montesinos said that he had participated in phone tapping since 1974, which led to the Public Prosecutor’s question, "Do you mean to say that for matters of state crimes can be committed?" Montesinos firmly responded "yes."

Montesinos attended trial to clear Fujimori of responsibility for crimes
For more than three hours Montesinos defended Fujimori from the crimes is accused of: "I have come in order to clarify that Mr. Fujimori has no responsibility in the acts that make up this trial." This clearly contradicted his statements to the Telemando chain in 2001, when he said: "A courageous and responsible leader should face up to what his subordinates have done, or what he permitted us to do," indicating Fujimori’s responsibility. Likewise, when Fujimori was in Japan as a fugitive from Peruvian justice, already accused of human rights violations, he stated, "If you have contact with Montesinos, you have the impression you are dealing with a sincere man with a kind face. But behind that face, we now know a diabolical person is hidden." At this time, Fujimori’s possible return to Peru was not anticipated.

Montesinos made unfounded accusations
Referring to army generals and the defense ministry during Alejandro Toledo’s presidency (2001-2006), Montesinos said. "none of these generals can tell me they are faultless."

Montesinos also said that then Public Prosecutor Pedro Méndez Jurado and Avelino Guillén (one of the Public Prosecutors in charge of this trial) were able to close a wiretapping investigation through coordination with Montesinos. Méndez Jurado has already deceased, for which reason he could not defend himself.

Montesinos made these kinds of derogatory statements toward various people, including former Vice President Máximo San Román, who according to the witness, only served to bring Fujimori coffee.

Surprising announcement at end of questioning
Moments before the trial’s recess for lunch, Montesinos asked to speak and informed the Court that he would now invoke his right to silence, refusing to answer any further questions from the Public Prosecutor. At this, the Court President expressed his displeasure since Montesinos had not informed them at the beginning of the session that his testimony would be cut short. However, he ruled that despite Montesinos’ unforeseen change of opinion, the witness’ right to silence would prevail.

2. Incidents during the hearing:

Montesinos’ transferMontesinos’ transfer
Montesinos arrived to the hearing’s location in the early morning with strong security measures. To date, he is the witness who has needed the most security.

Long wait for Montesinos’ presence
At the beginning of the session, the Public Prosecutor and later Ronald Gamarra — lawyer for the victims’ families — presented to the Court a series of documents found in computers of the National Intelligence Service (SIN). This presentation lasted approximately 40 minutes, heightening the anticipation of Montesinos’ presence in the courtroom. Fujimori and Montesinos had not seen each other in person since 2001, which generated a lot of excitement. Fujimori’s children, who had stopped attending the trial, reappeared for this session.

Looks between Fujimori and Montesinos
During the entire session, Fujimori and Montesinos exchanged glances and facial gestures, implying there might have been a possible deal between them. Some lawyers, such as José Ugáz Sáchez-Moreno, have said that "Both know that their judicial survival depends on the mutual refusal to incriminate the other. Both defenses have surely been in contact and have sought a deal for neither to jeopardize the other."

3. Next session: Pedro Villanueva Valdivia
The Court called former Army Commander General, Pedro Villanueva Valdivia, to testify in the next session on Wednesday, July 2.

[back to contents]

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Official Website of the ICTY

War crimes suspect says got no help from Serbia
International Herald Tribunal
Foo Yun Chee
June 23, 2008

THE HAGUE: Former Bosnian Serb police chief Stojan Zupljanin said on Monday he had had no help from Serbian authorities while he was on the run for more than four years and that he was almost relieved to be in custody.

Zupljanin, extradited to the U.N. tribunal for war crimes in The Hague from Serbia on Saturday, declined to enter a plea during his first appearance in court to face charges of killing Muslim and Croat civilians during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia.

Zupljanin has 30 days to enter a plea. He was one of the last four fugitives wanted by the U.N. tribunal for war crimes committed in the territory of former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Former Bosnian Serb army commander Ratko Mladic, Bosnian Serb political leader Radovan Karadzic and Croatian Serb wartime leader Goran Hadzic are still on the run and are believed to be hiding in Serbia or in the Serb-run half of Bosnia.

The Hague tribunal has said they are all within the reach of Serbian authorities.

The tribunal said on Monday it had reported the Serbian government to the United Nations Security Council for failing to cooperate in the case of former Serbian President Milan Milutinovic.

Tribunal President Fausto Pocar wrote to the Security Council last week after Serbia failed to serve a summons on General Aleksander Dimitrijevic, former head of the Yugoslav Army's Security Administration, to appear as a witness, despite repeated requests.

Serbia has been told it cannot progress towards European Union membership unless it cooperates with the Hague tribunal over fugitive war crimes suspects.

NO SUPPORT FROM SERBIA

"I wish they will remain at large forever," Zupljanin told the court of the fugitives, smiling and shaking his head as the judge read out the charges against him. "We have never had any support in Serbia from the democratic authorities."

Zupljanin, 56, accused the Serbian authorities of trying to liquidate him and other war crimes fugitives.

"I was exposed to enormous suffering and superhuman efforts to survive. There was a time of fear, hiding and concern. Compared to all of these, prison was a welcome thing. I was afraid of anything and everything," he said.

Prosecutors have charged Zupljanin with responsibility for murder, persecution, torture and deportation of non-Serb civilians and wanton destruction of towns and religious institutions.

He rejected the indictment and said he regretted the wars that tore apart the former Yugoslavia and wished Serbs, Croats and Muslims could still live as brothers.

Serbia, deeply split between nationalists and a pro-European bloc after inconclusive elections last month, is engaged in intense coalition talks.

The Democratic party leading the pro-Western bloc came first in the May 11 election but fell short of the 126 seats needed in the 250-seat parliament.

Analysts said Zupljanin's arrest might indicate that a pro-European coalition was the most likely outcome of the talks.

The Democrats said the arrest signalled Serbia might gain EU candidate status by the end of the year. The Radical party, leading the nationalist group, said it was a black page in Serbia's history.

European human rights watchdog to investigate claims Serbs were killed for organs
International Herald Tribune
June 25, 2008

STRASBOURG, France: A European human rights watchdog said Wednesday it would investigate claims that ethnic Albanian guerrillas in Kosovo killed Serbs and sold their organs at the end of the war in Kosovo.

The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly is sending Swiss Senator Dick Marty to Kosovo to draft a report on the accusations, which first appeared in a book by former U.N. war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte.

Del Ponte wrote that she had been told by "credible journalists" of an organ trafficking scheme. In her book "The Hunt: War Criminals and Me," she wrote that, according to her sources, Kosovo Albanians transported between 100 and 300 people — most of them Serb civilians — by truck from Kosovo to a house near the Albanian town of Burrel, about 55 miles (90 kilometers) north of the capital, Tirana. There, doctors allegedly extracted the captives' internal organs.

Albanian Foreign Minister Lulzim Basha has called the allegations "inventions and absurdities." But the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly — a group of 315 European parliamentarians meeting in Strasbourg — said it did not have "any grounds to doubt the competency and awareness of the former Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal on this matter."

It said that the claims must be thoroughly investigated and that, if true, "such monstrous crimes deserve the strongest condemnation on behalf of the European peoples."

In May, U.S.-based Human Rights Watch said it had information bolstering Del Ponte's claims and called for an investigation. It said it had sent a letter to the prime ministers of Kosovo and Albania urging them to examine the allegations, but received no response.

Hundreds of Serbs and ethnic Albanians are still missing from Kosovo's 1998-99 war.

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on Feb. 17. It has been recognized by the United States and the bulk of nations in the European Union. Serbia and its ally Russia oppose Kosovo's statehood.

Kosovo Journalist Faces Contempt Trial
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
Simon Jennings
June 27, 2008

Prosecutors ask for 15,000 euro fine for editor who revealed protected witness name in Haradinaj trial.

Hague prosecutors this week accused the editor of a newspaper in Kosovo of showing "reckless indifference" towards the tribunal’s rules by publishing the name of a protected witness, but the defence argued that the witness’s identity was already a "public secret".

Baton Haxhiu published a newspaper article that referred by name to a witness who was meant to be testifying anonymously at the trial of former Kosovo Liberation Army commanders Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj.

Haradinaj, until recently prime minister of Kosovo, was acquitted on April 3 of charges relating to the murder, rape, torture and deportation of Serb civilians during the 1998-99 conflict. The court noted at the time that a "high proportion" of prosecution witnesses said they were afraid to give evidence.

"The trial chamber gained a strong impression that the trial was being held in an atmosphere where witnesses felt unsafe," the final judgement says.

The indictment against Haxhiu accuses him of contempt of court on the grounds that he revealed the identity of a protected witness and that in doing so he "knowingly and wilfully interfered with the administration of justice".

Haxhiu admitted publishing the witness’s name, but said the article "did not constitute a revelation of the name of the witness".

The subject of the article, he said, was the tribunal’s investigation into allegations that the witness in question was pressured by Kosovo’s sport and culture minister Astrit Haraqija and his colleague Bajrush Morina. These two individuals were charged by the tribunal on April 25 for persuading the witness not to testify against Haradinaj.

"Given that Mr Haraqija and Morina were under investigation in this matter, I thought that the whole affair had become public, which in a way gave me the right to write about it publicly," Haxhiu said.

Haxhiu was informed of the protected witness’s identity by an official with the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, who subsequently left his post.

The editor argued that it was important to disseminate information about public figures because if citizens were "kept in the dark regarding the development and the activity of their political leaders, their life and future might be put in peril".

"Never did I intend to threaten the witness or his family, and never did I want to undermine his evidence in the trial against Ramush Haradinaj," he told the court.

"I have been a supporter of the view that this tribunal has contributed to the process of reconciliation throughout Yugoslavia and in Kosovo," Haxhiu added.

The prosecution, which is asking for a 15,000 euro fine, called just one witness – tribunal investigator Peter Mitford-Burgess, who interviewed Haxhiu on February 6 in Pristina.

Mitford-Burgess testified that the accused said he had sought neither legal guidance nor the advice of the tribunal before publishing the name.

The prosecution said Haxhiu showed "reckless indifference" and "wilful blindness" to the tribunal order to protect the witness.

According to Mitford-Burgess, the accused admitted during the interview that he "was aware of the tribunal regulations" and that in publishing the name he "broke a rule of the tribunal".

Mitford-Burgess also confirmed that the tribunal’s rules were available on its website in Albanian.

Prosecutor Vincent Lunny then showed the court a clip of Haxhiu giving a television interview in Kosovo earlier this month when he was on provisional release from custody in The Hague.

Haxhiu told the TV journalist what charges he faced at the tribunal and gave details of his custody, despite the fact that the terms of his release barred him from discussing his case with the media.

Responding to an objection from the defence that the video was not relevant to the trial, Lunny replied that the violation was "indicative of Haxhiu’s state of mind – his reckless disregard for the rules [of the tribunal]".

The defence said that the video clip actually cast the accused in a positive light, since it showed him telling his interviewer he could not talk about the case.

Defence counsel Christian Kemperdick did not call any witnesses in defence of his client, but offered written statements as evidence.

He contended that the identity of the protected witness was already a "public secret". The witness was known to certain Kosovans and therefore "it was not news" to read his name in the newspaper, he said.

Kemperdick argued that the name of the witness was not "disclosed" in the manner required for the tribunal to find the accused in contempt.

"Once [an identity] loses the characterisation of being a secret it cannot be disclosed any more," he explained.

In its closing statement, the prosecution said the tribunal’s order to protect the witness’ identity "was not important to Haxhiu". It claimed that the article itself proved he knew about the protective measures, because it twice refers to the witness as "protected".

Kemperdick concluded by arguing for a lenient sentence, should the trial chamber find Haxhiu guilty.

He countered the prosecution’s argument that Haxhiu had repeatedly shown disregard for the tribunal, telling the court that he had testified twice on behalf of the prosecution and was a reliable witness.

US Envoy Blames Croatia for Serb Exodus
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
Goran Jungvirth
June 27, 2008

Ex-ambassador says Zagreb did nothing to prevent the removal of Serbs from Krajina during 1995 operation.

A former United States ambassador in Zagreb, Peter Galbraith, said this week that a 1995 Croatian military operation did not amount to the "ethnic cleansing" of Serbs, but that the destruction of property which followed the attack looked like a concerted attempt to stop the community returning.

In testimony before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, Galbraith, who was US envoy in Croatia from 1993 to 1998, accused the authorities in Zagreb of welcoming the exodus and tolerating serious breaches of human rights.

His testimony forms part of the trial of Croatian generals Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac.

Gotovina, Cermak and Markac are indicted for war crimes against Serbs committed by troops under their command during and after the offensive known as Operation Storm, the objective of which was to retake territory held by rebels since 1991.

"The expulsion of Serbs wasn't a goal, but a consequence," said Galbraith.

In previous testimony at the trials of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic and Croatian Serb rebel leader Milan Martic, Galbraith has said there was no ethnic cleansing during Operation Storm, because most Serbs had fled before the army arrived.

It is estimated that some 200,000 Serbs left the region around the time of the offensive.

"You could not cleanse those who were not there," Galbraith told the tribunal this week.

According to the indictment, the generals took part in a "joint criminal enterprise" designed to drive the Serb population from Croatia. It says that at least 30 people were killed in Knin and at least 150 across Krajina between August and November 1995.

"Croats did not commit ethnic cleansing in Krajina, although they committed serious breaches of human rights," said Galbraith.

"The Croatian authorities either ordered or allowed the mass destruction of Serb property in former Krajina to prevent the return of the population. I consider that to have been a thought-through policy," he said.

In the first days after the Croatian army arrived in Knin, US embassy reports suggested there were widespread killings of Serb civilians and destruction of their houses, the witness said.

In Galbraith’s opinion, this happened “on the orders or with the tacit approval of the Croatian leadership”, with the military either present or participating in these actions.

Responding to a question from Gotovina's defence, Galbraith said major human rights violations – the killing of Serbs who had stayed, and the burning and looting of Serb property – did not occur during the first days of the operation, but afterwards.

"Croatia was an organised country, its army the most disciplined in the former Yugoslavia, and therefore I cannot accept that the illegalities that occurred after [Operation] Storm were spontaneous," Galbraith told the court.

The Croatian authorities did not make a serious effort to bring the situation under control, he said. In addition, officials also worked to stop Serbs who had fled from coming back, for example issuing orders to confiscate the property of anyone who failed to return within 30 days.

Galbraith said President Franjo Tudjman, Croatia’s first post-independence head of state, and the people around him wanted an "ethnically clean country".

Tudjman, named as the first accused in the indictment, died in 1999. According to the witness, the late president had the "idea of an ethnically homogenous Croatia" and believed the local Serbs posed a threat to the homogeneity of his country.

Galbraith noted that the US government took an understanding attitude towards Operation Storm at the time, but insisted he would not have asked Washington to give it the green light if he had believed Tudjman intended to remove the Serbs.

The diplomat said he expressly told Tudjman and the Croatian authorities of their obligation to protect Serb civilians and prisoners of war. He also warned them that there must be no repeat of the serious abuses committed during the earlier Medak Pocket operation conducted in 1993.

Galbraith confirmed that the US made representations to Tudjman on the eve of the operation asking him to protect civilians and comply with international humanitarian law, and said this message was then relayed by the then defence minister Gojko Susak to his subordinates.

In contrast to testimony given earlier in the trial by United Nations officials such as Andrew Leslie, who commanded the UN Confidence Restoration Operation, Galbraith said Knin was not randomly targeted during the first days of Operation Storm.

The damage from shelling was not large-scale and the city was left largely undamaged, he said, adding that this information came from embassy staff who – unlike UN personnel – were allowed to move around Knin during the first days of the offensive.

His Gotovina’defence counsel Greg Kehoe rejected the prosecution’s suggestion that Tudjman rejected a final peace offer before launching Operation Storm and imposing a military solution. The defence argues that Zagreb had been open to a peaceful outcome for Serb-held areas prior to the operation.

The trial continues next week.

Lavrov meets with Hague prosecutor
B92
July 2, 2008

THE HAGUE -- Hague Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz met in Moscow yesterday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

The two discussed the strategy for concluding the work of the Hague Tribunal.

Brammertz’s spokeswoman Olga Kavran confirmed that this was the first visit by a Hague chief prosecutor to Moscow for talks with Russian officials. She said that Brammertz and Lavrov had also discussed "ongoing issues."

According to the strategy for concluding the Tribunal’s work adopted by the UN Security Council, the Tribunal is due to wrap up all first instance cases by the end of this year, and all appeals by 2010.

Russia has insisted within the Security Council that these time frames be respected.

In reports to the UN Security Council, Tribunal President Fausto Pocar has stated on a number of occasions that first-instance trials will continue into next year, and has asked the international community for its support.

According to Kavran, Brammertz is in Moscow meeting with Brammertz "as part of regular contact with members of the UN Security Council."

Hague tribunal acquits Bosnian Muslim on appeal
Reuters
Niclas Mika
July 3, 2008

AMSTERDAM, July 3 (Reuters) - The U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague on Thursday overturned the conviction of a Bosnian Muslim wartime commander for failing to stop the murder of Serbs near the enclave of Srebrenica early in the 1992-95 conflict.

The court found the case had not been proven against Naser Oric, a hero for many Bosnian Muslims for leading the defence of the town which was later overrun by Bosnian Serbs who killed 8,000 people.

Oric had been originally handed a two-year prison sentence in 2006, but was immediately released since he had been in custody since 2003.

"I am happy, of course," he said after the verdict was announced. "I've never believed that Muslims committed crimes in Srebrenica. People under total siege were fighting only to survive."

The killing in July 1995 of some 8,000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces in the eastern town was Europe's worst atrocity since World War Two. Serbs say 3,263 of their own people had earlier been killed by forces under Oric's command.

The tribunal's appeals chamber said it had no doubt grave crimes were committed against Serbs in two detention facilities in Srebrenica between September 1992 and March 1993.

"However, proof that crimes have occurred is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of an individual for these crimes," the court said.

"Criminal proceedings require evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is individually responsible for a crime before a conviction can be entered."

When Oric was sentenced in 2006, Serbian politicians and media denounced the light sentence as a mockery of justice.

On Thursday, Serbian officials said the ruling undermined the credibility of the court and was a blow to international law.

"A verdict like this does not help the process of reconciliation in ex-Yugoslavia, which is one of the tribunal's main goals," said Serbia's top body for cooperation with The Hague.

NO OFFICIAL HISTORY

The verdict had a mixed reception in Bosnia, where Muslims, Serbs and Croats are still largely suspicious of each other.

With no official history since 1990 -- a deliberate omission by academics and education authorities to avoid fanning ethnic tensions -- each nation has stuck to its own version of events.

The Hague and international historians of the conflict have established that Bosnian Serbs, backed with guns and money from Belgrade, committed the lion's share of the atrocities in a campaign to wipe out their Muslim compatriots.

The autonomous Serb half of Bosnia has apologised for the crimes, but many Bosnian Serbs feel the charge is unfair.

"It is evident now that (The Hague) is biased towards the Serbs, who are the main ones charged for war crimes committed in the 1992-95 war," said Miroslav Mikes, a Bosnian Serb lawyer who is trying to get cases of crimes against Serbs before the court.

"The greatest irony is that Oric will likely be compensated for the time he spent in jail despite irrefutable evidence of the crimes he committed."

But Munira Subasic, head of the Women of Srebrenica association, said Oric's innocence was obvious from the start.

"He was himself the victim of genocide" as 22 members of his family members had been killed by Serbs, Subasic said. "The fact that the court indicted him for war crimes made us all believe it had become unjust." (Additional reporting by Maja Zuvela in Sarajevo, Olja Stanic in Banja Luka, Ivana Sekularac in Belgrade; Writing by Ellie Tzortzi; Editing by Richard Balmforth)

[back to contents]

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

Official Website of the ICTR

Judicial Conference Condemns Abuse of Universal Jurisdiction
The New Times
James Karuhanga
June 21, 2008

NYARUGENGE - An international judicial conference has recommended the use of Universal jurisdictions but condemned its abuse. The three-day meeting was aimed at evaluating the recent judicial reforms in Rwanda. It concluded Wednesday evening by recognizing progress and remarkable achievements in the reforms.

"The conference applauded the tremendous improvements and achievements made in the justice sector since the reforms started taking shape in 2004," said Tharcisse Karugarama, the Minister of Justice.

"One of the most important recommendations was in regard to the abuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction," he underscored; "the conference came out and condemned its abuse," Karugarama revealed.

Participants agreed that, ideally, people should be prosecuted from where crimes were committed and that universal jurisdiction is necessary.

Participants proposed that African countries should integrate universal jurisdiction in their legislative framework and strengthen their systems to have African courts handling part of their cases.

Rwanda reiterated its commitment to the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Prosecution of foreigners was also highlighted

"The conference recommends the creation of regulatory mechanisms to question the soundness of indictments/warrants from other national states, with the possibility to suspend warrants as long as they are questioned," read the draft recommendation document.

In addition, Rwanda was urged to deposit the ratification of the international convention against torture as an instrument for prosecution and extradition.

According to the minister, the conference made several recommendations among which civil society organizations and NGGs should be neutral and work in close collaboration with the government.

"There should also be accountability on the part of the civil society organizations," he added.

"They shouldn’t consider themselves only accountable to their financiers, but also to the beneficiaries or the countries where they serve," Karugarama continued.

He stressed that there were sub-recommendations on how close cooperation could be achieved especially on the part of civil society organizations.

Providing information on their budgets and submitting reports for comments before they are published was crucial.

It was agreed that improving relations between the justice sector and civil society organizations should be done by improving dialogue and constructive engagement between both parties to promote better understanding and accountability.

Improvements in the quality of the sector’s work, education, involving the public and their access to justice were also proposed.

The conference urged for improved accountability and productivity by finding ways and means of improving on the existing back-log of cases.

It pointed out increasing the capacity of mediation committees as another area worth improving and called for efforts in achieving uniform and consistent practices.

Gacaca, TIG and unity and reconciliation were also among the recommendations. It was urged that special attention be paid to the sensitivity of sexual violence cases handled by gacaca courts and appropriate measures taken. A new baseline study after gacaca to evaluate its impact was called for, among other things.

Professor Sam Rugege, the deputy chief justice who presided over the closure as guest of honour said that participants enjoyed the conference.

"We didn’t agree on all but we shared a lot and agreed on a lot," he said.

Karugarama, Rugege, Markus Zimmer of the USA and Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga, were the panellists at the official closing of the event that brought participants from many countries as well as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), civil society organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, African Rights and the East African Court of Justice.

Ex-Rwandan Tea Authority Boss Signs Guilty Plea Agreement with ICTR
Hirondelle News Agency
June 25, 2008

Arusha, 25 June 2008 (FH) - Genocide-accused former boss of Rwandan tea authority , Michel Baragaragaza, has signed a guilty plea agreement over the 1994 killings with the Office of Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

However, the details of the agreement remain confidential, reports Hirondelle Agency.

Two former officials prosecuted by the ICTR in two separate cases-- Protais Zigiranyirazo, brother-in-law of the former Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and Joseph Nzirorera, a former important figure in then Habyarimana regime-- have filed a motion requesting for the agreement to be transmitted to them, which is a useful document to their defence before the UN Court, trying the key architects of the 1994 slaughter.

"The Prosecutor requests the Trial Chamber to dismiss the defence motion in its entirety or in the alternative, to maintain the confidentiality of plea agreement until the acceptance of Bagaragaza's guilty plea in an open court,'' responded Senior Trial Attorney, Tanzanian Wallace Kapaya ,in his written submission dated 17 June and posted to the UN web site.

The hearing of the guilty-plea motion has been scheduled for 4 July.

Bagaragaza was transferred in mid May back to Arusha from the Hague, The Netherlands, following revocation of an application by the ICTR Prosecutor for referral of the case because the Dutch courts do not have any jurisdiction in trying such a case.

Bagaragaza, on 16 August 2005, surrendered to the Tribunal in Arusha and was charged with four counts of genocide and crimes against humanity.

On 18 August 2005, the accused was transferred to the Special UN Detention Facility (UNDF) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) following a request by the ICTR Prosecutor to grant the transfer for security reasons.

This was followed by two attempts by the Prosecutor to transfer Bagaragaza's case to Norway and to The Netherlands.

In the case of Norway, the Trial Chamber, relying on the submissions by the Norwegian Prosecutor, found that Oslo did not provide for the crime of genocide, which was alleged in the Indictment, and therefore denied the application.

When the Prosecution renewed its request for referral to The Netherlands, it was supported by a statement of the Dutch prosecutor that the Netherlands had jurisdiction to try the case. However, The Hague District Court afterwards stated that the Dutch Courts do not also have any jurisdiction in trying such cases.

Bagaragaza, a close relation of the former President Juvenal Habyarimana, is accused of having contributed to create, finance, train and arm the Interahamwe militia, the main armed faction of the1994 genocide.

Bagaragaza, if his guilty plea is accepted by the Chamber, will be the ninth defendant of the ICTR to recognize their guilt in the 1994 genocide.

Except for the former Prime Minister Jean Kambanda, all the persons who have pleaded guilty have benefited from a substantial reduction in their sentences.

One of them, the former town councillor Vincent Rutaganira, was released from prison at the beginning of March after having served his six years; the shortest sentenced ever delivered by the ICTR.

Headquartered in Arusha, Tanzania, the ICTR has delivered so far, 30 convictions and 5 acquittals.

Confessed Genocidaire Claims Kalimanzira Encouraged Tutsi Killings
Hirondelle News Agency
June 25, 2008

Arusha, 25 June 2008 (FH) - A self-confessed genocidaire accused Wednesday the former government senior official, Callixte Kalimanzira, in a trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) of having incited on several occasions the extermination of ethnic Tutsis in 1994 in the sub-prefecture of Gisagara, southern Rwanda.

The protected witness code-named "BCN" for his safety, alleged that Kalimanzira spoke at several public meetings between April and June 1994 to encourage Hutus to kill Tutsis and to destroy their houses.

"We were executing his instructions", claimed BCN who testified in Kinyarwanda and translated into French and English, the two official languages of the Tribunal.

The witness also stated that each time the defendant passed a road block known as "Jaguar", which had been set up in front of the Catholic church of Gisagara, the accused did not miss the chance to encourage the killers.

At one of his passages, Kalimanzira was astonished not to see corpses. "We told him to look closely ... two steps away from the road block there was a pit filled with Tutsi bodies,'' alleged BCN.

Accused of genocide, complicity in genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, Kalimanzira, a trained agronomist, has pleaded not guilty. Kalimazira was acting Minister of Interior during the April-July 1994 genocide.

His trial began on 5 May and, according to a source at the office of the prosecutor, they are expected to rest their case this week.

Around twenty prosecution witnesses have already been called to the stand in the trial.

ICTR Mulls Plea Bargain with Man Accused of '94 Genocide
The New Times
George Kagame
June 28, 2008

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is currently involved in negotiations with Michel Bagaragaza so that the 1994 Rwanda Genocide suspect can plead guilty to his crimes.

Court insiders speaking on condition of anonymity said that preparations are underway for Bagaragaza to change his plea to guilty when he makes his second appearance on July 4. He pleaded ‘not guilty’ at his initial court appearance on August 16, 2005 to three counts on which he was indicted.

Bagaragaza is accused of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, or alternatively complicity in genocide, for which he made his initial appearance on August 15, 2005.

He is said to have been one of the technical and mobilisation figures in managing the crucial stages of the planning and implementation of the 1994 Genocide. He surrendered to the ICTR in a complex deal between himself and the Office of the Prosecution (OTP).

Bagaragaza’s case has taken him on a world tour so far, having been a subject to three national jurisdictions and two international tribunals; Arusha and The Hague.

The nature of the case has been explained as necessary due to security problems related to the decision by Bagaragaza to surrender to the Tribunal.

"The prosecutor’s office does not want to publicize its dealings before they are completed because that could have an impact on the outcome of his other investigations," Roland Amoussouga, the Spokesman of the UN court said.

Michel Bagaragaza voluntarily surrendered to the ICTR in Arusha on August 16, 2005, as part of an "amicable arrangement" the terms of which the prosecution refused to disclose.

Bagaragaza’s case was one of the few cases presented at the recent UN Security Council meeting in New York by ICTR President Judge Dennis M Byron as he informed the UN Security Council on the UN mandated court about its recent completion strategy report.

Byron noted that Bagaragaza’s case was one of several which have an impact on the mandate of the court.

The June 2008 Completion Strategy document lists Bagaragaza’s case as a guilty plea and does not highlight the date upon which trial procedures will start. The OTP will formalize the deal in Trial Chamber Two.

Prosecution Rests its Case on Ex-High Ranking Official Kalimanzia
Hirondelle News Agency
June 30, 2008

Arusha, 30 June 2008 (FH) - The prosecution case against Callixte Kalimanzira, a former high ranking government official, rested Monday without the last witness testifying, reports Hirondelle Agency.

Kalimanzira, acting Minister for Interior during the 1994 genocide, is accused of three counts of genocide and crimes against humanity. He has pleaded not guilty.

The trial, which began on 5 May, is expected to resume in November although no exact date was fixed during the brief status conference held Monday morning.

The 24 prosecution witnesses who testified for a 16-day period, constitutes one of the fastest before the Arusha-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), trying the key architects of the April-July killings.

The prosecution and defence lawyers, however, were opposed over the length of the questioning; the cross-examinations of the defence lasting almost twice as long as that of the prosecution's.

Kalimanzira was a close acquaintance of Interim President Theodore Sindikubwabo and Prime Minister Jean Kambanda and an influential member of then ruling party MRND. He has been in detention since November 2005.

According to the prosecution, the accused participated in hate meetings which encouraged killings and did not even have mercy even on refugees who pleaded for help when killings started on Kabuye Hill, which was site of horrific killings of over 20,000 mainly ethnic Tutsis.

The prosecution is led by Catherine Graham (Australia) and the defence by Arthur Vercken (France). The Chamber is presided by Dennis Byron (St-Kitts and Nevis), ICTR president.

[back to contents]

Iraqi High Tribunal

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

Kurdish Minority Prepares Genocide Case
Middle East Times
June 21, 2008

BAGHDAD, June 21 (UPI) -- The Iraqi High Tribunal is prepared to hear a case concerning atrocities committed against Fayli Kurds under Saddam Hussein, officials said.

Fayli Kurds settled the border regions between modern-day Iran and Iraq during the Mesopotamian era in what are today the Ilam and Kirmanshah provinces of Iran and the Diyala province in Iraq.

Thousands of Faylis settled in Baghdad, and their numbers reached about 1 million before Saddam Hussein launched ethnic cleansing campaigns against the ethnic minority in the 1970s and 1980s.

European officials and representatives from the Kurdistan Regional Government brought several Faylis to Iraq to serve as witnesses as their cases are prepared for delivery before the Iraqi High Tribunal, the Kurdish Globe reported.

Many of the witnesses said they were the victims of the chemical thallium, a nerve agent, forced displacements and disappearances.

Approximately 10,000 Faylis were detained under Saddam and hundreds of families were deported to Iran.

"The Faylis were living in Iraq for hundreds of years," said Mihabad Qaradaghi, a Kurdish official. "In the 1970s, the Kurdish (political) movement was active inside Baghdad due to the large Fayli population there. Authorities at that time planned to cleanse them to remove their influence and to benefit financially by confiscating their property."

Qaradaghi said several of the Fayli witnesses face obstacles to regain their Iraqi citizenship. The Kurdistan Regional Government offered to provide Faylis with identity cards, but the issue largely rests with Baghdad, she said.

The Iraqi High Tribunal is to consider whether the crimes committed against the Faylis amount to genocide.

[back to contents]

Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)

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

Not Above the Law
Newsweek (USA)
Jessica Bennet
June 12, 2008

The prosecutor in the war-crimes trial of ex-Liberian president Charles Taylor discusses the tribunal's message and the challenges that lie ahead.

He is accused of backing rebels in some of the most atrocious crimes of our time: the slaughter and looting of entire villages, the use of child soldiers, rape, and the systematic amputation of hands and limbs by axes and machetes. So when it was determined that Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president, would be brought to trial--the first African head of state ever to be tried for war crimes--the indictment was hailed as a landmark for war-torn western Africa. Taylor, who was elected president in 1997, would face charges of crimes against humanity by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a tribunal created by the United Nations to seek justice for Taylor's role (which prosecutors have described as "the very worst humans are capable of") in the neighboring nation's 10-year civil war.

But last Monday, the 59-year-old Taylor plunged the opening day of his trial into chaos, boycotting the hearing and firing his court-appointed lawyer, who walked out of the courtroom after receiving word that Taylor planned to represent himself. And though the trial (which is taking place at the International Criminal Court in The Hague) was expected to be a challenge, the disruption raised questions about how the process would work, and highlighted the difficulties in trying complex international cases. It also drew comparisons to the theatrical trial of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic. Stephen Rapp, the prosecutor in Taylor’s case and the former chief prosecutor in the Rwandan genocide tribunal, addressed those questions with NEWSWEEK's Jessica Bennett. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What was your reaction to day one of the trial, and is it a sign of things to come?
Stephen Rapp: We [know] that in all of these international trials you have situations where the accused decide to thumb their nose at the process, and you just have to be ready to accept that. But I was happy we were able to present our case and lay out the evidence that we think is powerful and compelling.

Will Taylor be allowed to represent himself?
I doubt it. The judges are going to have to make a decision about that, and I think they'd be more inclined, if worst came to worst, to appoint a new counsel for him. [The court next meets in late June.]

What's the message of this trial?
The big message is that no individual is above the law. But another clear message I think resonates in Darfur and other places where individuals think they'll get away with [crimes against humanity] and may even be able to arrange for a safe exile out is that those kinds of arrangements don't work. At the end of the day, the pressure internationally is so great that countries have to give up these people that are accused of these serious offenses.

Has that put dictators on notice?
Yes, absolutely. And we're not just talking Africa, but other places as well. I think the news is that as people become aware of the charges and the allegations and the crimes, eventually the pressure builds to the point that their cohorts give them up. And those who think that by putting an indictment out hurts the chances for peace I think have discovered that actually in the end it aids the cause for peace. These individuals end up losing support and legitimacy they had beforehand.

You were the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. What are the biggest challenges when dealing with these kind of high-profile cases?
The biggest challenge is the insider-witness challenge. Taylor obviously never set foot in Sierra Leone, but we think there's abundant evidence of all the ways that he assisted and aided and abetted and indeed planned the war, and used the rebel army essentially as his own. And we have multiple witnesses to prove every part of it.

Are those witnesses in danger?
The witnesses do feel themselves in threat, and there are issues of how to protect them once their identities are disclosed to the accused, and whether you can protect them in the long run, and find them a home somewhere else. That's always a difficulty when you're in the international system and you've got to deal with getting people immigration status in another country to protect them. In many cases, you have to deal with the fact that an insider could be arguably implicated in the crime and therefore not eligible for refugee status.

How will you protect them?
The court has already relocated 15 witnesses in earlier cases, so it can be done and we're working through that.

How will the prosecution link Taylor's alleged participation in the crimes and the crimes themselves?
There are communications and radio operators who were his key aids, his eyes and ears, both when he was a rebel leader and president. And there are minutes and records regarding their trips to see Taylor, what he told them in these, how many diamonds they delivered to him and how many weapons he sent them. And then there are insiders in Liberia who can describe weaponry supplies and other support given to them throughout the conflict. And if that's not enough, we have the fact that throughout this entire period, he was receiving regular notice of what the [Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone] was doing and continued to support them.

There's some concern that Taylor's trial could follow the trajectory of Slobodan Milosevic's. What was the major fault of that trial, and what's being done in this case to prevent that?
The real complication with the Milosevic trial was Milosevic's health, which limited the number of days they could sit [in court] dramatically. He was also of course his own attorney, so they had that problem. In Taylor's case, we don't have a health problem, and we don't have self-representation unless the judges approve it. Another issue in [Milosevic's] case was that the chief judge died, and to avoid that situation, though it's costing us some money, we've asked the United Nations to appoint a fourth judge to sit as an alternate throughout the trial just in the unfortunate and indeed unforeseen event that one of the other judges didn't end up finishing.

Why isn't Taylor being tried in Sierra Leone?
Leaders in the region expressed concern about having him tried there for the potential destabilizing effect it could have on the region.

But does holding trial in Europe run the risk of isolating the victims from the process? What's being done to ensure awareness?
We usually like to have our trials in-country, where they're accessible to the victims and close to the scene of the crime. But if that's not possible, we extend outreach programs all over the country describing what was going on and showing videos. We've also received grant funding for three journalists from Sierra Leone and three from Liberia to come to The Hague for two or three months and cover the trial.

The Special Court is funded by contributions from other governments. Is there worry that the funding could potentially run out?
I don't think so. Back in 2004 the court had a financial crisis and the U.N. came through with a grant. And though they said that would never happen again, I don't think realistically the world community would let us run out of money. But we obviously don't want to face that prospect. So my challenge, as a prosecutor, goes beyond even being in the court. I have to make sure we've got the money to try these cases.

Liberia: Taylor's Arab Connection Revealed
The Analyst (Monrovia)
Alphonsus Zeon and Adolphus Williams
June 23, 2008

The trial of the former Liberian President Charles Taylor has heard additional evidence of his alleged support to the RUF rebels, his connections with Arabs in the diamond trade as well as the role of his son, Chuckie in human rights abuses in the region.

Prosecution witness, TF1-590, a Sierra Leonean exile living in Europe, who is also due to later testify against Chuckie in the United States, said Taylor supplied arms to the RUF and had Arabs buying diamonds from RUF rebels.

The witness told the court that he had spoken with a team of United States Federal prosecutors including Assistant US Attorney, FBI and Immigration and custom agents.

During questioning, Taylor's lead lawyer, Courtney Griffiths said he suspected the Special Court prosecutors and United States Federal Prosecutors were working together in prosecuting Taylor and his son.

Griffiths asked TF1-590 whether during interviews with US Federal prosecutors he had told them about Taylor's dealings with Arabs. The witness answered in the affirmative.

Griffiths said that when TF1-590 had given an earlier testimony to prosecution investigators on two different occasions in 2007 in which he had made no mention of Arabs being diamond merchants of Charles Taylor as he suggested Monday.

The witness had testified earlier and said that he had been arrested together with two other Sierra Leoneans accused of being Kamajor civil militia fighters and were taken on the ATU Gbatala Base in Bong County, in central Liberia which was commanded by Chuckie Taylor.

The witness said that Taylor did send a message that he wanted to set eyes on the suspected Kamajor fighters. TF1-590 said they were blind-folded and thrown into the back of a jeep headed for Monrovia, with their hands and feet tied.

At Taylor's White Flower home, the witness continued, they met the former Liberian president in pyjamas who allegedly asked the witness and his colleagues if they were the Kamajors sent to overthrow his government.

Another witness who took the stand during the week, 34-year-old RUF Radio Operator, Alice Pyne said RUF commander Issa Sesay took diamonds from Sierra Leone to Charles Taylor in Liberia to take back arms in return.

"What I learned in Buedu from Major Sellay and Sebatu who were in the Buedu station told me that Issa Sesay went with those diamonds to Charles Taylor so that he would bring arms and ammunition. I leant that when he went to Liberia he was lodged at a hotel according to his explanation. It was at that hotel he lost the diamonds." (sic)

Alice went on that RUF Battle group commander, Sam Bockarie alias Mosquito, also brought weapons from Liberia and distributed them to junior commanders like Superman. She said Taylor's support to the rebels went beyond arms and ammunition, alleging the former Liberian president also sent seven persons believed to possess magical powers to protect rebel fighters in their attempt to retake the Kono district.

Charles Taylor's lawyers said that Alice was not present when Sam Bockarie returned from Liberia and could not testify to what he might have brought with him.

They tried to contradict the witness's evidence that Taylor had supplied arms to the RUF and read out what another Prosecution witness, TF1-516, had told the court in April concerning the source of ammunition for the RUF.

Defence lawyer, Anyah said that despite mounting evidence that Taylor sent NPFL commanders to fight alongside RUF in Sierra Leone, Major Sally Duwai and Col. Daniel Tamba, alias Col. Jungle were ordinary Liberian NPFL fighters who crossed over to Sam Bockarie after they were cut off during fighting between the NPFL and another Liberian rebel group, ULIMO-K, in Lofa County.

Sierra Leone: Testimony Ends in RUF Trial
Concord Times (Freetown)
Bhoyy Jalloh
June 26, 2008

The Defence concluded their case late Tuesday in the trial of three former leaders of Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front (RUF). An Expert Witness, called jointly by counsel for First Accused Issa Sesay and Third Accused Augustine Gbao, was the last witness to testify in the RUF trial and also before the Court in Freetown, as the Special Court for Sierra Leone takes a significant step forward in completing its mandate.

The trial of The Prosecutor vs. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao opened in Freetown on 5 July 2004. The Judges of Trial Chamber I heard testimony from 86 witnesses during the Prosecution case, including one called at the behest of the Defence. 85 witnesses were called by the Defence. Of the 85 Defence witnesses, 59 witnesses were called by counsel for Sesay, while counsel for Kallon called 22 witnesses, and counsel for Gbao called eight witnesses. Three of the witnesses were common to Sesay and Kallon, and one was common to Sesay and Gbao.

Final trial briefs are due by 29 July 2008 and oral arguments will take place on 4-5 August, prior to the Court's judicial recess. The Judges will then retire for deliberations. A trial judgment in the case is expected later this year.

Two other cases were concluded at the Special Court earlier this year. On 22 February 2008 the Appeals Chamber rendered its judgment in the case of three former leaders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council. On 28 May 2008 the Appeals Chamber handed down its judgment in the case of two former Civil Defence Forces leaders.

The Special Court trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor continues at The Hague.

[back to contents]

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

In Focus: Special Tribunal for Lebanon (UN)

Jumblatt is concerned about a deal against Lebanon's Tribunal
Ya Libnan
June 30, 2008

Beirut - Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt expressed concern over a possible deal being prepared at the expense of Lebanon and the international tribunal.

Jumblatt expressed his stand in an article to be published by the PSP's weekly magazine al-Anbaa on Tuesday. Advance copy was distributed by the state-run National News Agency on Monday.

"What has happened to the International Tribunal that no one is mentioning these days although it was the only way to deter political assassination in Lebanon?" Jumblatt asked.

He also asked: how can Hezbollah negotiate to swap prisoners, and how can others negotiate with Israel to achieve peace and "Lebanon has no right to implement the 1949 armistice accord with Israel?"

The head of the Democratic Gathering bloc, said "it is not right for Hezbollah and Syria to conduct prisoner exchanges with Israel and carry out negotiations with the Jewish State while the Lebanese are deprived of the right to follow the truce signed between Beirut and Tel Aviv in 1949."

"Why can't the Lebanese state call for placing the Shebaa Farms under the supervision of the UN?" Jumblatt asked and "Why is everyone calling for this is being accused of treason?"

Jumblatt said "the current events raise many questions about the fate of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, including the recent violence in the country, the impossible conditions MP Michel Aoun (whom he described as the Mugabe of Lebanon, in reference to Zimbawe's dictator Robert Mugabe ) is imposing, the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations, the establishment of the government, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad's upcoming visit to France, and the resignation of UN Undersecretary General for Legal Affairs Nicolas Michel."

Jumblatt said the "insistence on the part of a known party on turning Lebanon into an open ground for regional and international struggles to be fought will lead to the country's destruction."

[back to contents]

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia

Official Website of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia

LMC Reiterates Calls for Johnson-Sirleaf To Appear Before TRC
The News via allAfrica.com
June 30, 2008

MONROVIA, The Liberia Media Center (LMC) has reiterated calls for President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf to appear before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) when called upon.

LMC maintains that the President should lead by example and appear.

In a release issued last week, the media center indicated that the President would make history if she appeared before the commission.

The center said her presence at the TRC would encourage other major actors and perpetrator to do likewise.

The media center commended the Analyst newspaper for its column, "Memo to the President" in which the paper ran articles for a record twelve (12) times reminding President Sirleaf of her commitment to the TRC and the consequences of her refusal to appear.

President Sirleaf had said that she would write a book sharing her experience about the war with the Liberian people.

Certain high profiled individuals who participated in the war have also refused to appear before the TRC.

Meanwhile, the Liberia Media Center (LMC) has released its second media monitoring report of coverage of the Truth and Reconciliation process and the trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor.

According to an Executive Summery released last week, the Center said the outcome of this exercise, like the previous one, is not intended to establish the "best from the rest" neither to stimulate undue competition amongst media houses, but rather it seeks to assist, where necessary, by offering technical and editorial advice to improve the content of news and programs being delivered by the various media outlets under the project.

The LMC said the exercise seeks to build a culture of professional accountability amongst media houses, adding that the Liberian media has shown strong interest in the coverage of the TRC process and the Charles Taylor trial
The media center however indicated that despite resource and editorial constraints, the print and broadcast media sectors performed satisfactorily with very few incidents of ethical and editorial problems.

According to the summery, in the print sector, The Daily Observer and New Democrat were outstanding in their coverage of both processes, though overall, the broadcast media provided more coverage than the print.

The center observed that The New Democrat published fewer gruesome pictures that distinguished news reports on the trial from their opinion pages and carried over a dozen stories.

Other newspapers making strides, according to the media center, were The Analyst and National Chronicle.

"The print sector devoted 1.8% of its total content space to the TRC, while the broadcast sector dedicated 3.0% of its total airtime. The Analyst Newspaper should be specifically credited for keeping a number of issues on the radar, notably the appearance of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf before the TRC," LMC pointed out.
“The Liberia Media Center recognizes that the project has helped place emphasis on informing the public and helping media organizations provide accurate and balanced coverage of the trial. However, there is room for all media organizations to improve their reports by trying to find creative ways to overcome resource challenges and generate some original reporting and rely less on syndicated materials,” the executive summary said.

[back to contents]

United States

Panel Seeks Testimony from Rumsfeld Aide
Associated Press
by Libby Quaid
June 24, 2008

A congressional subcommittee voted Tuesday to subpoena an adviser to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the Bush administration's harsh interrogation policies toward terror detainees.

Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy, had agreed to testify but changed his mind hours before he was to appear last week at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing.

Feith is believed to have been instrumental in drafting government interrogation policies in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, policies that critics say led to torture.

His lawyer said Feith changed his mind when he learned that Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, an aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, would also testify.

The lawyer, John Moustakas, wrote the committee that Wilkerson has made defamatory comments about Feith, calling Feith stupid and a "card-carrying member of the Likud part"' and more loyal to Israel than the U.S.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the subcommittee chairman, said he had never seen a witness behave as Feith did.

"One witness' dislike for another witness cannot become a reason not to provide critical testimony to Congress," said Nadler, D-N.Y.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said Feith justifiably believed the hearing would not be a respectful discussion about terror detainees if Wilkerson shared the microphone.

Republicans asked the Democrats who control the panel to give Feith the opportunity to appear voluntarily without a subpoena. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the panel was "trying to use a sledgehammer when maybe a flyswatter would do."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he hoped Feith would appear voluntarily and that the committee would not need to issue a subpoena.

CBS to Appeal Military Court Ruling on Haditha Interview
New York Times
By Brian Stelter
June 27, 2008

A First Amendment case has escalated between CBS News and a military court over a “60 Minutes” report about an attack at Haditha, Iraq.

The network is seeking to prevent the government from reviewing the unbroadcast parts of an interview with an officer who is being prosecuted over the incident.

Last Friday, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the government should be allowed to view the interview with Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, who faces charges including voluntary manslaughter in the deaths of Iraqi civilians at Haditha in November 2005.

A spokeswoman for CBS said on Wednesday that the network was “planning to pursue an appeal” of the military court’s decision. The next highest court is an appeals court representing all the armed forces.

In February, the government issued a subpoena for a videotape of the “60 Minutes” interview, portions of which were broadcast in March 2007. Government lawyers are trying to assess whether Sergeant Wuterich said anything in the parts of the interview that were not broadcast that would be pertinent to their case. CBS declined to share its news-gathering material and called the request “unreasonable and oppressive.”

In February, siding with CBS, a military judge quashed the subpoena, but the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled last week that the judge had been wrong to do so. The appeals court directed the judge to conduct “additional fact-finding,” including a private review of the videotape, to determine if the parts of the interview that were not broadcast were “relevant and necessary” to the sergeant’s prosecution.

Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, said that CBS and other news organizations had fought similar government assertions in the past.

“Broadcasters receive a significant number of subpoenas seeking their interviews, their outtakes, and sometimes their confidential sources,” Mr. Abrams said.

U.S. Court Overturns Pentagon's Case Against Guantánamo Detainee
International Herald Tribune
by William Glaberson
July 1, 2008

In the first case to review the U.S. government's secret evidence for holding a detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a U.S. appeals court found that accusations against a Chinese man held for more than six years had been based on bare and unverifiable claims.

The unclassified parts of the decision were released Monday.

With some derision for the arguments of the administration of President George W. Bush, a three-judge panel said the government had contended that its accusations against a detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.

The court compared that with the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem "The Hunting of the Snark": "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

"This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true," said the panel of the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel unanimously overturned as invalid a Pentagon determination that the prisoner, Huzaifa Parhat, a member of the ethnic Uighur Muslim minority in western China, had been properly held as an enemy combatant.

The panel included one of the court's most conservative members, the chief judge, David Sentelle.

The release Monday of the unclassified parts of the decision followed a brief court notice last week. The notice said a classified decision had directed the government to release Parhat, transfer him to another country or hold a new military hearing at Guantánamo to determine whether he had been properly classified as an enemy combatant.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling.

Although the decision was a defeat for the Bush administration, it was unclear what it might mean immediately for Parhat. U.S. officials have said that they cannot return Parhat and 16 other Uighur detainees at Guantánamo to China for fear of mistreatment and that about 100 other countries have refused to accept them.

Detainees' lawyers said the ruling in the case of Parhat, who says he went to Afghanistan in 2001 to escape China, could have broad effects on other cases because of the court's skeptical view of the government's evidence.

A lawyer representing other prisoners, Marc Falkoff, said the evidence against many of the 270 men at Guantánamo was similar to that reviewed in the Parhat case.

"This opinion shows that the government is going to have a hard time defending the military's decision to detain many of these men," said Falkoff, who is also a professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

Pentagon officials have claimed that the Uighurs at Guantánamo were "affiliated" with a Uighur resistance group, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, and that it, in turn, was "associated" with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The ruling released Monday overturned the Pentagon's finding based on that affiliation after a 2004 hearing that Parhat was an enemy combatant. He and the other Uighurs were detained after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The court said the classified evidence supporting the Pentagon's claims included assertions that events had "reportedly" occurred and that the connections were "said to" exist, without providing information about the source of such information.

"Those bare facts," the decision said, "cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant."

Some lawyers said the ruling highlighted the difficulties they saw in reviews by civilian judges Guantánamo cases.

"This case displays the inadequacies of having civilian courts inject themselves into military decision-making," said Glenn Sulmasy, a law professor at the Coast Guard Academy and a national security fellow at Harvard University.

The 17 Uighurs held at Guantánamo say they are allies, not enemies, of the United States.

The Chinese government has described the East Turkistan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization. U.S. officials agreed in 2002, when they were pressing for Chinese support for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The decision was written by Judge Merrick Garland, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. It was joined by Sentelle, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, and Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Marines Speak at Sniper's Hearing Over Iraq Deaths
International Herald Tribune
July 2, 2008

A Marine sniper believed he was shooting at insurgents planting a roadside bomb when he killed two Syrians in Iraq, platoon members testified in military court Tuesday.

Sgt. John Winnick II is charged with voluntary manslaughter and failing to adhere to the military's rules of engagement by firing without reasonable certainty that his targets were hostile.
Winnick, 24, also faces charges of aggravated assault against two other men injured in the June 17, 2007, shooting incident.

The shooting occurred during a surveillance operation near Lake Tharthar in Iraq's western Anbar province, according to charging documents. The lake was a favored fishing site of the late Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein.

Winnick, who appeared in court wearing desert fatigues, answered only procedural questions during the first day of the hearing before a Marine investigating officer, Capt. Jeffrey King.
At the conclusion of the hearing, King will recommend to Marine commanders whether there is enough evidence to proceed to court-martial. If convicted, Winnick, who is from San Diego, faces a maximum 40-year sentence.

The case against Winnick, a team leader on his fourth Iraq deployment when the shootings occurred, again raises the question of whether a Marine pulled the trigger too quickly in a war where enemies often blend in with civilians.

Winnick and his men had just arrived in Iraq and were watching an abandoned mosque and gas station in an area known for frequent roadside bomb attacks.

Winnick fired after an 18-wheel soda delivery truck stopped on a highway at the same spot where two unidentified men had been seen apparently scooping out the area days before, said Cpl. Alexander Wazenkewitz, who was manning radio communications.

Then all six Marines on the team stormed out of an abandoned building, some shooting at the truck passengers with shotguns.

Wazenkewitz said he believed the possibility of a threat justified the use of force.
"I don't want to die. That's why we did it," he said.

Syrian truck drivers like the two dead men, Raid Ahmed and Rayson Muhammad, commonly used the highway route when making deliveries. Marine prosecutors said they did not know the nationality of the two injured men, Hosham Motar Ibrahim and Abdullah Akhmed Hussein. A spokesman earlier said all four were Iraqis.

Winnick's men were members of the Camp Pendleton-based 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force — the same battalion that has generated other high-profile cases, including the prosecution of eight Marines after the shooting deaths of 24 Iraqi men, women and children in Haditha following a roadside bomb explosion.

The Haditha incident has resulted in the largest criminal case against U.S. troops involving civilian deaths in Iraq.

Another criminal case to emerge from Camp Pendleton was the fatal kidnapping and shooting of a middle-aged man in Hamdania who was mistaken for a terrorist.

[back to contents]

UN Reports

U.N. Security Council Says Sexual Violence Akin to War Crimes
Los Angeles Times
By Maggie Farley
June 20, 2008

UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council affirmed Thursday that rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, and called for measures to combat such attacks.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced the U.S.-sponsored resolution at a special session attended by diplomats from 60 nations.

Rice said the resolution brought an end to a debate about whether sexual violence was a security issue and belonged on the council's agenda. A similar resolution last year failed to pass, with several members disputing the need for it.

"I am proud that today we respond to that lingering question with a resounding yes," she told the Security Council. "This world body now acknowledges that sexual violence in conflict zones is indeed a security concern.

"We affirm that sexual violence profoundly affects not only the health and safety of women, but the economic and social stability of their nations."

The resolution established U.N. procedures to monitor sexual violence in armed conflicts and called for the secretary-general to report in one year on their implementation. It also urges the U.N. to impose sanctions on violators.

Advocacy groups pushed the issue back onto the council agenda after China, Russia and South Africa said last year that sexual violence was an unfortunate byproduct of war and one that was addressed by a number of U.N. agencies, but was not a matter of international peace and security.

The resolution also urged the secretary-general to clamp down on peacekeepers who prey on vulnerable women and children instead of protecting them.

Despite an attempt by the U.N. to revamp the regulations and culture among peacekeepers and staffers after incidents of sexual exploitation over the last few years in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, reports of further abuses surfaced last year in several countries.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the council that he was committed to "zero tolerance" and "zero impunity" for sexual abuse by U.N. personnel and urged countries that provide troops to follow through with prosecution because the U.N. has no authority to try the perpetrators.

He pledged to strengthen the world body's code of conduct and hold supervisors accountable for assaults committed by soldiers and staffers.

The presence of high-level female officials at Thursday's meeting was deliberate. Rice chaired the gathering. France's secretary of state for human rights, Rama Yade, called for the prosecution of sexual violence at the International Criminal Court. British Atty. Gen. Patricia Scotland denounced recent attacks on women in Zimbabwe, especially the killing Wednesday of the mayor's wife in the capital, Harare.

The wives of the U.S. and British ambassadors to the United Nations also have worked to raise awareness that rape is a deliberate war tactic meant to intimidate and destroy communities, as seen in the former Yugoslav federation, Sudan's Darfur region and Congo.

After adopting the resolution, the council held an informal session to condemn increasing violence in Zimbabwe in the run-up to the June 27 presidential runoff election.

Next week, the Security Council will have its first formal meeting on the violence there and will be briefed by U.N. envoy Haile Menkerios, who was in Zimbabwe on Thursday.

South Africa, China and Russia have blocked official discussion so far, saying it would be interfering in a nation's internal affairs.

Rice cited concern among council members that "free and fair elections cannot possibly be held" in Zimbabwe because of the increasing intimidation of and violence against the opposition by the government of President Robert Mugabe, who is seeking reelection.

"I think that the mood in the room was one of extraordinary concern and a desire for President Mugabe to hear that there is tremendous international concern about what is happening in his country," the secretary of State told reporters after the meeting.

"I don't see anything that President Mugabe has done that has been helpful to Zimbabwean people, so maybe it's time for international pressure."

UN war crimes tribunal chief reports Serbia to Security Council
UN News Service
June 23, 2008

The President of the United Nations tribunal set up to deal with the worst war crimes committed during the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s has reported Serbia to the Security Council for failing to cooperate with the court.

Judge Fausto Pocar of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) informed Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad of the United States, which holds the rotating Council presidency this month, that the Serbian Government had been unwilling to cooperate in the so-called ‘Milutinovi and others’ case.

The ICTY trial chamber tried on a number of occasions between March and June this year to contact General Aleksander Dimitrijevi?, former head of the Yugoslav Army’s Security Administration, to have him appear as a witness in the Milutinovi case.

Mr. Milutinovi is on trial with five other former top Yugoslav political and military figures – Nikola Šainovi?, Nebojša Pavkovi, Dragoljub Ojdani, Vladimir Lazarevi and Sreten Luki – over an alleged campaign of terror and violence directed against Kosovo Albanians and other non-Serbs living in Kosovo in 1999. All six men face charges of murder, deportation, forcible transfer and the persecution of thousands of Kosovo Albanians and other non-Serbs.

As Gen. Dimitrijevi’s address in Serbia was not available to the ICTY, both the trial chamber and Judge Pocar urged Rasim Ljaji?, the head of Serbia’s National Council for Cooperation, on a number of occasions to ensure the delivery of both the letter inviting the General to testify and the subsequent subpoena.

But the National Council for Cooperation’s response to requests from the tribunal for updates “were often delayed and incomplete,” according to a statement to the media issued today, and Gen. Dimitrijevi? failed to appear in court as well.

“The Government of Serbia is challenging the authority of the International Tribunal and the Security Council,” Judge Pocar said, adding that Serbia is therefore “in breach of its international legal obligations.”

UN tribunal grants provisional release to two former senior Serbian officials
UN News Service
June 27, 2008

The United Nations war crimes tribunal set up in the wake of the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s has ordered the temporary provisional release of two former high-level officials with the Serbian secret service facing trial on charges that include murder, persecution and illegal deportations.

Jovica Staniši and Franko Simatovi were granted provisional release by the trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on 26 May, but the decision had been stayed until yesterday after the prosecution appealed the initial ruling.

The ICTY appeals chamber has already ordered that the trial of the two men be adjourned for at least three months because of the ill-health of Mr. Staniši? and that his health must be re-assessed before the trial can resume.

Mr. Staniši and Mr. Simatovi, both high-levels with the Serbian secret service, are accused of having directed, organized, equipped, trained, armed and financed secret units of the Serbian State Security which are alleged to have murdered, persecuted and deported Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serb civilians from Bosnia and Herzegovina and from Croatia between 1991 and 1995.

Mr. Staniši was also a close aide to the former Yugoslav and Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevi.

U.S. Backs U.N. Official in Darfur Indicted in Rwandan Deaths
Washington Post
By Colum Lynch
June 29, 2008

UNITED NATIONS -- The State Department has urged the United Nations to retain a Rwandan general as the second-highest-ranking U.N. peacekeeper in the Darfur region of Sudan, even though he has been indicted for allegedly committing war crimes in Rwanda during the mid-1990s, according to U.S. and U.N. officials.

Rwandan Maj. Gen. Emmanuel Karake Karenzi, the U.N. deputy force commander in Darfur, was charged by a Spanish magistrate in February with responsibility in the killings of thousands of ethnic Hutus during the mid-1990s. The Rwandan government says the charges are baseless and has asked the United Nations to renew his contract for another year when it expires in October.

Rwanda's insistence that Karenzi remain in the mission poses a dilemma for the United States as it seeks to ensure support for a faltering U.N. effort to prevent atrocities in Darfur. Rwanda contributes 3,000 troops to the mission in Darfur -- roughly one-third of the current force -- and its withdrawal would erode the peacekeepers' ability to function.

In a meeting last week, Jendayi Frazer, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Africa, urged U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the world body's top peacekeeping official, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, to renew Karenzi's contract, according to American and U.N. officials. Frazer argued that the United Nations cannot afford to alienate the Rwandans when they are needed in Darfur and may play a role in a future U.N. mission in Somalia. She signaled that Karenzi "has to stay," a U.N. official said.

But others in the administration believe Karenzi should go. "There are many in the U.S. government who think we should dump the guy," said one American official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "But Assistant Secretary Jendayi Frazer has the final call."

"The message was, 'Listen to the Rwandans,' " the official said.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has indicated that the U.S. position was not monolithic but that he lacked instructions from Washington on how to proceed. "Ambassador Khalilzad made it clear to the secretary general that this is [Ban's] decision," said Ric Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, "and that we will not stand in the way of what the U.N. thinks is best."

Rwanda's U.N. ambassador, Joseph Nsengimana, noted that the world body has already offered to renew the contract of the top commander of the U.N. mission in Darfur, Gen. Martin Luther Agwai of Nigeria, but has not done the same for Karenzi. "We have nominated General Karenzi because he is professionally qualified and the U.N. has recognized he is a very good official," Nsengimana said. "As the force commander's contract was automatically renewed, we requested to know why Karenzi's was not."

The controversy surrounding Karenzi comes as the United States struggles to press countries to commit more troops to the U.N. force in Darfur. Fewer than 10,000 peacekeepers are serving in a mission that was originally expected to include more than 26,000 troops. By most accounts, Karenzi has served with distinction in Darfur.

In 1994, Rwanda's Hutu extremists killed more than 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus in a genocidal campaign that ended after the Tutsi rebel army, known as the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), intervened and drove the Hutu-dominated government into eastern Congo. Karenzi, who played a key role in the rebel campaign, is considered a war hero in Rwanda for driving out the genocidal regime.

A Spanish magistrate, D. Fernando Andreu Merelles, issued an indictment in February against 40 Rwandan officials, including Karenzi and Col. Rugumya John Gacinya, Rwanda's military attache in Washington, for reprisal killings against Hutus in the years after the RPF seized power.

Merelles alleged that Karenzi, who was Rwanda's intelligence chief, had command responsibility for a series of political assassinations and massacres, including the "elimination" of Hutu populations in the towns of Nyakinama and Mukingo between 1994 and 1997.

"There is no basis whatsoever to support these allegations," said the Rwandan Foreign Ministry, which has accused the judge of conducting a halfhearted investigation that relied on evidence provided by anti-government extremists. It said Merelles made no effort to interview witnesses in Rwanda or to work with Rwanda's judicial authorities.

Karenzi's appointment last August as the second-ranking U.N. peacekeeper fueled criticism from the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch, which said Rwandan forces under Karenzi's command recklessly killed civilians during a June 2000 battle with Ugandan troops in the Congolese town of Kisangani. Both sides showed a "blatant disregard for the lives of civilians," the rights group's executive director, Kenneth Roth, wrote in a letter to the United Nations and the African Union in December.

U.N. peacekeeping officials said they looked into the charges but could not establish whether Karenzi was responsible for war crimes. However, the Spanish indictments have prompted the United Nations to try to persuade the Rwandan government to replace Karenzi with another officer.

Nsengimana suggested that Rwanda would not budge, claiming that the Spanish case is built on allegations from individuals responsible for Africa's worst genocide. "For us this is a very big issue -- to choose between the people who committed genocide and a person who stopped genocide," he said.

Khmer Rouge appeal case to test limits of international law
AFP
June 30, 2008

PHNOM PENH (AFP) — The first big test of the UN-backed Cambodian genocide court begins on Monday when a former Khmer Rouge foreign minister is scheduled to appear in court to appeal against his detention.

Ieng Sary, 82, is one of five top regime cadres currently detained for crimes allegedly committed during the Khmer Rouge's 1975-79 rule over Cambodia.

He has been charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity and is expected to face trial within the next year.

But his lawyers say that Ieng Sary was absolved of any crimes after he surrendered to the government in 1996, when he received a royal pardon for an earlier genocide conviction.

That conviction was handed down in a 1979 trial in absentia conducted by the government installed after Vietnam occupied the country and ended the Khmer Rouge's bloody reign.

"Amnesty is one of the areas of international criminal law where law and politics collide. But the (Khmer Rouge trial) judges will have to judge it as a legal question to be decided," Skillbeck said.
"It's one of the most significant legal questions for this tribunal to answer and an important question in international criminal law in general," he added.

At Monday's hearing, Ieng Sary's lawyers will seek to have him freed on bail, and are expected to argue later in the week that the charges should be dropped because his amnesty still holds.

As the top Khmer Rouge diplomat, Ieng Sary was frequently the only point of contact between Cambodia's secretive communist rulers and the outside world.

He was also one of the biggest public supporters of the regime's mass purges, researchers say.

Up to two million people died of starvation and overwork, or were executed, as the Khmer Rouge set about dismantling modern Cambodia after seizing control of the country.

But as much as he was an advocate for the regime during its 1975-79 rule, Ieng Sary's later defection to the government proved a fatal blow to the then-disintegrating movement.

His wife Thirith, who also became a minister in the Khmer Rouge regime, was arrested with him in November.

[back to contents]

NGO Reports

President Limits Reach of Nethercutt Provisions for 2008
American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court
June 20, 2008

President limits reach of Nethercutt provision for 2008: On June 20, 2008 President Bush directed the Secretary of State to waive Economic Support Funds (ESF) sanctions with respect to 14 nations: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Ecuador, Kenya, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, South Africa, and Tanzania. Congress approved HR 2764 and President Bush signed into law in December 2007 a comprehensive Consolidated Appropriations Act which reinstated the so-called Nethercutt provision cutting off ESF to nations unwilling to enter into Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) shielding US nationals from the jurisdiction of the ICC. Those US allies not subject of the waiver may lose millions of dollars in economic assistance. Click here to reach more about US legislation on the ICC.

From Nuremberg to Darfur: Accountability for Crimes Against Humanity
Human Rights Watch
By Elise Keppler
June 24, 2008

Human Rights Watch appreciates the invitation to submit a statement for the record on this important subject. Justice for serious crimes under international law – which include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture – is crucial. Accountability brings redress to the victims and signals that heinous abuses will not be tolerated.

Since its creation, this subcommittee has taken important steps to combat impunity for serious crimes. This includes the subcommittee’s hearing last November on avoiding safe haven for perpetrators of human rights violations in the United States. We further welcome that members of this subcommittee have proposed bills to ensure justice for these crimes, such as the Genocide Accountability Act of 2007.

While federal law currently makes it a crime to commit genocide, war crimes, and torture, as discussed below, crimes against humanity are not expressly criminalized. We believe it is vital that members of this subcommittee take up efforts to pass legislation to close this loophole and also to ensure that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have adequate resources and capacity to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity when they have been committed.

The need to criminalize crimes against humanity in the United States
Major international law commentaries explain that crimes against humanity are crimes – which either by their seriousness and savagery, or by their magnitude, or because they were part of a system intended to spread terror – shock the conscience of humanity. Crimes against humanity have been defined under international law as unlawful acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. The acts that constitute crimes against humanity include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, arbitrary detention, torture, rape, persecution on political, racial and religious grounds, and other inhumane acts.

International and hybrid international-national criminal tribunals, including those supported by the United States – such as the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda – prosecute crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, such courts cannot be depended on to address impunity in every situation: they have limited resources and mandates restricted to specific periods and conflicts. At the same time, national courts in the places where heinous abuses are committed are often unable or unwilling to prosecute.

It is thus vital that the United States is prepared to prosecute crimes against humanity. We believe this requires new legislation. Some might ask whether this is really necessary as many of the underlying offenses are already crimes in the United States. However, existing law is unlikely to have the appropriate jurisdictional reach to ensure the United States does not operate as a safe haven for perpetrators from abroad. It also does not reflect the breadth and gravity of the underlying offenses when they are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. Moreover, the underlying offenses may be subject to statutes of limitations, which should not apply when it comes to international crimes.

With regard to the jurisdictional reach, it is crucial that crimes against humanity be prosecutable regardless of where the crime was committed and whether the crimes were allegedly committed by a US national. This is an important component to existing federal law on other serious crimes, such as torture and genocide. Specifically, these laws – thanks in part to amendments to the crime of genocide proposed by members of this subcommittee – make the crimes punishable regardless of the nationality of the offender or the victim and the location of the crime, as long as the alleged offender is present in the United States.

Another important issue is the elements of the crime. In this area, the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have developed extensive experience in the prosecution of crimes against humanity and have made a unique contribution to the development of international law in this field. The elements of crimes against humanity in any US legislation should thus reflect the jurisprudence of the international tribunals. It may also be valuable to draw from the definition of crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which provides an up to date articulation of the crime under international law.

We would like to highlight that the jurisprudence of the tribunals is furthermore clear that crimes against humanity occur when the crimes are either widespread or systematic, and that it is not necessary that both elements exist together. Widespread connotes the scale on which the conduct is carried out, while systematic relates to the level of planning or organization. Systematic has been defined by the tribunals as thoroughly organized and following a regular pattern on the basis of a common policy. While a systematic attack will generally involve large-scale offenses, this is not required. Nevertheless, prosecuting the underlying offenses where they are of a gravity reflected by their commission in an organized nature is vital. Systematic is not envisioned to apply to ordinary domestic crimes.

Another important element to crimes against humanity is recognition that criminal liability can exist on the basis of what is known as command responsibility. This arises when leaders – those in positions of command – knew or should have known about the commission of serious crimes. This basis of liability has been integral to successful cases in international criminal tribunals against leaders who bear responsibility for the crimes but are often physically far removed from the scenes of crimes. Human Rights Watch believes that individuals can already be prosecuted in the United States on the basis of command responsibility: the basis of liability is expressly recognized in the US military code, has been upheld by the US Supreme Court in cases brought after World War II, and has been recognized in several civil cases in federal courts involving human rights violations. Nevertheless, we believe that prosecutors may benefit from an explicit and direct recognition of this basis of criminal liability for human rights violations. Illustrative of how important it is to ensure that there is a clear legal basis for a perpetrator to be held liable on the basis of command responsibility is a recent decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda which refused to transfer a war crimes case to Rwanda, as there was no explicit basis for command responsibility liability in Rwandan law.

Ensuring laws on serious crimes are applied
While making crimes against humanity punishable in the United States is an essential first step, ultimately the key is whether the law will be applied. In this regard, we welcome the Department of Justice’s first ever case under the extraterritorial torture statute that was initiated on December 6, 2006 against Charles “Chuckie” Taylor, Jr., the son of the former Liberian president Charles Taylor. The charges relate to Taylor, Jr.’s role in allegedly committing torture while head of a security unit under his father’s presidency in Liberia. Notably, the torture law had been in effect for more than ten years before the first case under it was brought. Similarly, prosecutions have not to our knowledge been initiated for genocide or war crimes.

In recent years, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security have taken important steps to enhance efforts to prosecute human rights violations committed abroad. Such steps include the creation of an ad hoc interagency working group to increase coordination among the many agencies involved in avoiding safe haven for human rights violators in the United States. The Department of Justice also has a section, the Domestic Security Section, which focuses on investigating and prosecuting human rights violations committed abroad. Designating primary responsibility for such cases within one section is especially valuable. Research by Human Rights Watch on Western European practice suggests that concentration of relevant expertise in specialized units is one of the most important elements in the successful prosecution of these cases.

Given such efforts, it is in some respects surprising that there has been only a single US prosecution for torture committed abroad. According to US authorities, a number of investigations have been initiated and while criminal charges were not brought, immigration charges were made. The dearth of cases is due at least in part to the significant challenges of investigation and prosecution of these types of crimes. Analysis of similar cases in Western Europe by Human Rights Watch suggests that such cases involve major difficulties caused by a combination of factors, including: language barriers; complex and unfamiliar political and historical contexts; the need for evidence that is tough to track down and to obtain access to; the importance of conducting extraterritorial investigations to identify evidence and witnesses; the need to ensure that witnesses who may face serious threats if they become involved in a prosecution are protected; and having to prove crimes that may never have been previously adjudicated.

A number of the challenges to prosecuting human rights violations committed abroad have been expressly acknowledged by US officials. How best to overcome them, however, needs increased attention. One obvious critical element is political will to ensure adequate resources to conduct effective investigations where the complexities described above exist. Support also is needed to facilitate exchange of information and best practices with practitioners in other countries.

Congress is well placed to intensify scrutiny of the challenges and to strengthen law and practice to surmount them. This is essential if perpetrators of heinous abuses are to be held to account and if the case against Chuckie Taylor is to be more than an anomaly in US practice. We look forward to further efforts by this subcommittee to ensure that crimes against humanity constitute an offense in the United States and that the necessary capacity exists to ensure prosecutions of this terrible crime.

African Union: Use Summit to Press Senegal on Hissène Habré Trial
Human Rights Watch
June 24, 2008

During its upcoming summit, the African Union should ask Senegal to explain why little progress has been made in the two years since it mandated Senegal to prosecute former Chadian dictator Hissène Habré, eight human rights organizations said today. The African Union is holding its bi-annual summit here on June 30 and July 1.

Habré is accused of massive crimes during his 1982-1990 rule before he fled to Senegal in 1990. On July 2, 2006, the African Union mandated Senegal to “prosecute and ensure that Hissène Habré is tried, on behalf of Africa, by a competent Senegalese court.” Senegal has yet to initiate a prosecution, however.

The African Union should ask Senegal for a road map for the investigation and trial of Habré, said a joint statement by the Chadian Association for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (ATPDH), the Chadian Association of Victims of Political Repression and Crime (AVCRP), the African Assembly for the Defense of Human Rights (RADDHO), the Chadian League for Human Rights (LTDH), the National Organisation for Human Rights (ONDH) Human Rights Watch, Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l’Homme, and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH).

“Senegal has perfected the art of delay in this case. The African Union’s credibility is at stake,” said Alioune Tine of the Dakar-based African Assembly for the Defense of Human Rights (RADDHO). “This is a test case for African justice. Africa can’t complain that international justice is picking on African leaders while it allows the Habré case to die a slow death in Senegal.”

In January 2008, at Senegal’s request, European Union experts visited Senegal to evaluate its financial and technical needs. The experts called on Senegal to define a prosecution strategy and set forth a precise calendar and a reasonable budget, none of which has been done. They also suggested that a Senegalese coordinator be named to handle the administrative and financial aspects of the case.

In April, the former coordinator of Habré’s legal team, Madické Niang, was named minister of justice of Senegal – a key position for the organization of the trial. In May, he announced the appointment of a coordinator for the trial as well as a “Follow-up and Communication Committee.” He also stated that a constitutional amendment would soon be adopted making clear that Senegalese courts may prosecute acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes perpetrated in the past. He also said judges would be named to investigate the case by June 7, but neither of these pledges has happened.

“The victims are tired of Senegal’s promises, it is time for the case to get moving,” said Souleymane Guengueng, founder of the Chadian Association of Victims of Political Repression and Crime (AVCRP), who almost died during two years of mistreatment in Chadian Habré’s prisons. “The African Union needs to step in.”

The AU decision mandating Senegal to try Habré envisaged “provid[ing] Senegal with the necessary assistance for the effective conduct of the trial,” but it took 16 months for the African Union to name Robert Dossou, Benin’s former foreign minister and justice minister, as an envoy to the trial. His role is unclear, however, and the groups asked the African Union to define his mandate and to provide concrete assistance to Senegal.

“The African Union needs to ensure that its decision to try Hissène Habré is put into practice,” said Dobian Assingar, a Chadian activist with the FIDH.

In its May 2006 ruling in the case Guengueng v. Senegal, the UN Committee against Torture found that Senegal had violated the Convention against Torture twice, first by failing to prosecute Habré when the victims first filed their case in 2000, and then by failing to prosecute or extradite him when Belgium filed an extradition request in September 2005. The committee ruled that Senegal was obliged to prosecute or extradite Habré.

Background

Hissène Habré ruled Chad from 1982 until he was deposed in 1990 by President Idriss Déby Itno and fled to Senegal. His one-party regime was marked by widespread atrocities, including waves of ethnic campaigns. Files of Habré’s political police, the DDS (Direction de la Documentation et de la Sécurité), which were discovered by Human Rights Watch in 2001, reveal the names of 1,208 persons who were killed or died in detention. A total of 12,321 victims of human rights violations were mentioned in the files.

Habré was first indicted in Senegal in 2000 before courts ruled that he could not be tried there. His victims then turned to Belgium and, after a four-year investigation, a Belgian judge in September 2005 charged Habré with crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture.

Following a Belgian extradition request, Senegalese authorities arrested Habré in November 2005. The Senegalese government then asked the African Union to recommend how to try Habré. On July 2, 2006, the African Union, following the recommendation of a Committee of Eminent African Jurists, called on Senegal to prosecute Habré “in the name of Africa,” and Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade declared that Dakar would do so.

Sudan: End Unfair Trials
Human Rights Watch
June 25, 2008

The Anti-Terrorism Special Courts set up by the government of Sudan to try individuals accused of participating in the May 10, 2008 attack on the capital by a Darfur rebel group do not meet minimum international fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said today.

On June 18, 2008, the trials of 36 individuals began simultaneously in three Special Courts in Omdurman, Khartoum North, and Khartoum. The Special Courts were created shortly after the May attacks under Sudan’s 2001 Anti-Terrorism Law specifically to try individuals accused of participating in the attack on Omdurman by the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). Lawyers for some of the 36 defendants told Human Rights Watch that they had limited or no access to their clients and described the court proceeding as arbitrary, forcing some defense lawyers to withdraw. Under Sudanese law, a defendant can be convicted on the basis of a confession made while in incommunicado detention or during coerced interrogations.

“The Sudanese authorities should stop denying defendants their right to a fair trial, otherwise the trials are no more than a show,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should allow the defendants full access to their lawyers.”

The defendants, whom the government alleges are members of JEM, are charged as a group under various articles of the 1991 Penal Code and the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Law, which is being used for the first time after Sudan classified JEM as a terrorist group following the May 10 attack. The charges include armed robbery and violating the “Terrorist Crimes” and “Terrorist Organization” provisions of the 2001 law, which carry the death penalty if convicted. Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty.

Human Rights Watch has serious concerns about a defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial within the procedures of the newly established Anti- Terrorism Special Courts. In the Special Court in Khartoum, the judge refused defense lawyers’ access to their clients and assigned the cases to a legal aid lawyer, taking away the defendant’s right to choose a lawyer. Another Special Court procedure removes the defendant’s right against self-incrimination, in violation of international law.

Cases must be appealed to the Anti-Terrorism Appeal Court within seven days of the judgment – hardly sufficient time for an appeal to be brought, especially given the seriousness of the charges. Special Court proceedings cannot be stopped and judgment will be passed, preventing appeals on important legal questions before there is a verdict. The decision of the Appeal Court is final.

“Special courts that cut out basic fair trial rights should be abolished, and the cases should be turned over to the regular courts,” said Gagnon. “The government is just paying lip service to the concept of justice.”

In a June 2008 report, "Crackdown in Khartoum: Mass Arrests, Torture, and Disappearances Since the May 10 Attack,” Human Rights Watch documented a series of human rights violations by the Sudanese security forces in the wake of the JEM attack on May 10. Human Rights Watch obtained the names of more than 200 people who were detained by the authorities, with some former detainees claiming that the total number of people detained might reach as high as 3,000. The fate and whereabouts of the 200 people whom Human Rights Watch has the names of are unknown. Released detainees told Human Rights Watch how state security services tortured and mistreated detainees, who endured inhumane conditions in prisons and secret detention centers.

“Countries genuinely concerned about the situation in Khartoum should be pressing the Sudanese government to account for the whereabouts of all detainees, and promptly charge or release them,” said Gagnon.

Appeals likely to delay release of ICC's first defendant
American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court
July 2, 2008

Appeals likely to delay release of ICC's first defendant: On July 2, 2008 Trial Chamber I of the ICC issued a decision ordering the release of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo once all appeals, if any, have been exhausted. The Chamber issued the decision in response to a motion by the defense for Mr. Lubanga and its own finding that a fair trial would not be possible if the Prosecutor does not release confidential exculpatory documents to the accused. It is very likely that the prosecution will appeal this decision. The Chamber also granted the prosecution leave to appeal its June 13 decision to stay the proceedings. These appeals will likely delay any possible release of Mr. Lubanga, alleged leader of the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC) militia in the Democratic Republic of Congo, on charges of war crimes related to the conscription and abuse of child soldiers which were confirmed by Pre-Trial Chamber I in January 2007.

[back to contents]