War Crimes Prosecution Watch

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber

Radomir Vuković ordered into custody
State Court of BiH
August 8, 2008

On August 8, 2008 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) issued a Decision ordering into one-month custody Radomir Vuković, who is suspected of the criminal offence of Genocide. Pursuant to the Decision, the custody may last until 7 September 2008.

Having considered the submitted evidence, the Court concluded that there was grounded suspicion that the Suspect Vuković had committed the foregoing criminal offence. Further, the Court ordered custody having found that there was sufficient evidence indicating the risk of flight on the part of the Suspect, and that the Suspect, if released, might interfere with the criminal proceedings by influencing the witnesses. Also, the Court ordered the Suspect Vuković into custody given that the crime in question carries a 10-year imprisonment penalty or a harsher sentence, so due to the manner of perpetration or the consequences of the crime, bearing in mind that releasing would result in a genuine threat to public order.

Savic on Trial for Visegrad Crimes
BIRN Justice Report
August 12, 2008

The indictment was read today and the Prosecution and Defense presented introductory arguments in the trial of Momir Savic for crimes committed in the Visegrad area in 1992.

Savic is accused of persecution, murder and rape. He is alleged to have been a commander of the Republika Srpska Army’s Visegrad Brigade and also a member of a paramilitary group. Prosecutor Adnan Gulamovic said he would examine 33 witnesses and present 82 pieces of material evidence. He said the evidence would confirm the allegations contained in the indictment.

The Defense will seek to prove that Savic never participated in persecution, forcible resettlement, murder or rape of Bosniak women in the Visegrad area. It says that Savic was never a commander with the Visegrad Brigade.

The indictment alleges that Savic participated on several occasions in abuse of captured Bosniak civilians in Visegrad. He is also accused of false arrest, pillage and murder, and he is charged with having raped a woman several times between June and September 1992.

The Prosecution alleges that the indictee and "other VRS members" took 10 Bosniak civilians from their homes in the Drinsko settlement, maltreated them and then shot them in Pusin do forest in May 1992. The Prosecution said it had documents to prove the indictee's wartime status, and other evidence to support witnesses’ statements.

The Defense denied all the allegations in the indictment and questioned the credibility of Prosecution witnesses. "Twenty-two, out of 33, Prosecution witnesses, know the indictee by sight or do not know him at all. Those who do know him have not confirmed that he committed the crimes described in the indictment," attorney Dragan Medjovic, said, arguing that it is absurd to have witnesses who have never seen the indictee accuse him of grave crimes.

Medjovic said that during the trial he would show that his client "kept numerous civilians from being killed and helped them safely leave Drinsko village" during the war, and that he had to leave Visegrad in early 1993 because of that.

Kovac: Trial for Vitez Crimes Begins
BIRN Justice Report
August 13, 2008

At the beginning of the trial of Ante Kovac the State Prosecution laid out its plans for presenting evidence. The Defense will present its plans at a later stage.

In its introductory argument, the Prosecution said it would prove that Ante Kovac had participated in crimes against Bosniak civilians in the Vitez area in 1993. The Prosecution will examine 22 witnesses, including women who claim to have been raped by Kovac. "In the course of the evidence presentation process the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina will examine four protected witnesses and present 24 pieces of material evidence," Prosecutor Mirko Lecic said. "By doing this we will prove the actions committed by the indictee."

Kovac is charged, as commander of the Military Police Squad of the Croatian Defense Council, HVO, Vitez Brigade, with having "ordered and approved" the unlawful detention of Bosniak civilians in the premises of the Radnicki University, the Public Accounting Service, and a cinema in Vitez in the course of 1993. The detained civilians were held in inhumane conditions. They were forced to work on the frontline between the Bosnian Army and HVO forces, and at the "Kaonik" detention camp and in buildings belonging to the Chess Club in Busovaca.

"We will prove that the indictee raped witnesses A and B and confiscated valuables from some civilians," Lecic said.

The Defense will present its introductory arguments only after the Prosecution has presented all its evidence.

Kovac was arrested in January 2008. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed the indictment in March this year. Kovac has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Radmilo Vukovic Acquitted of Foca Rape
BIRN Justice Report
August 13, 2008

Radmilo Vukovic has been acquitted of the rape of a woman in Foca, in eastern Bosnia, in 1992 after the Appellate Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina said there was not enough evidence.

The Appellate Chamber said there was not sufficient evidence to sentence Radmilo Vukovic, adding that this was "an atypical rape for that specific region and period of time. "This Court has already pronounced a few verdicts for rape, but this case is much more specific and delicate," said Appellate Chamber Chairwoman Azra Miletic. "What we have here is a rape that is atypical for that specific area and period of time, when women were detained and forced into sexual intercourse," said Miletic.

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina last year pronounced a first instance verdict sentencing Vukovic to five-and-a-half years' imprisonment. The Chamber had determined that he raped protected witness on several occasions in Foca during 1992, who then gave birth to a boy in Gorazde in February 1993.

It said he abandoned the baby after the delivery. During the course of the trial it was determined that Vukovic was the father of the child. However, both the Prosecution and Defense filed appeals, which the Appellate Chamber upheld, ordering a retrial in August 2007. Miletic said that a thorough analysis of the statements given by witnesses A and B resulted in the Court determining "that those statements contained contradictions that could not be ignored". "By denying her relation with the indicted, which was a proven truth, and by saying that she never mentioned the abuse to anyone else, witness A imperiled her credibility," Miletic added.

During her testimony witness B, the injured party’s sister, said that A had told her that she was raped several times in 1992. But the Appellate Chamber was not able to determine whether the relationship between witness A and Vukovic was in fact "involuntary". Fadil Jahic, former chief of the gynecological department in Gorazde hospital, appeared as a witness during the retrial. He remembered witness A, but he could not remember her saying that Vukovic raped her.

"Why didn't witness A file a report against Radmilo Vukovic immediately? Why did she decide to protect him if he had committed this disgusting act?" Miletic asked.

The Appellate Chamber said that it was undoubtedly determined that an armed conflict was underway when the crime was committed and that sexual intercourse took place resulting in pregnancy and childbirth.

Vukovic said that the Appellate Chamber rendered an "objective decision".

The Court has pronounced second instance verdicts against the following persons, sentencing them for crimes committed in Foca area: Radovan Stankovic (sentenced to 20 years), Gojko Jankovic (34 years) and Nedjo Samardzija (24 years).

First instance verdicts were pronounced against Mitar Rasevic, sentencing him to eight-and-a-half years, and Savo Todovic, sentencing him to twelve-and-a-half years, for crimes committed in Foca Correctional Facility. Ranko and Rajko Vukovic were sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment each for crimes committed in Podkolun village, in the Foca municipality.

Andrun: Verdict Due on August 19
BIRN Justice Report
August 14, 2008

After the completion of the retrial of Nikola Andrun, the Appellate Chamber schedules announcement of verdict for August 19.

Closing arguments by Defense counsel have been heard in the retrial of Nikola Andrun before the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo. This concludes the trial. The Appellate Chamber will give its verdict on August 19. The Defense called on the Chamber to render a decision that would be "based on law, justice and equity" and thus contribute to reconciliation among the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Andrun was sentenced after a first instance verdict announced in December 2006 to 13 years in prison for having participated, as deputy commander of Gabela detention camp, near Capljina, and a member of the "Knez Domagoj" Brigade of the Croatian Defense Council, HVO, in "mistreatment, beating, murder and inhumane treatment of detained civilians". Both parties filed appeals, which were upheld by the Appellate Chamber. The Chamber ordered a retrial.

At the end of the retrial, the indictee addressed the Chamber, saying that, out of 13 counts in the indictment, he only admitted having taken one prisoner from hangar number 2 of Gabela detention camp to the gate of the administrative building, where a group of HVO soldiers hit the prisoner with gun butts, which made the prisoner lose consciousness for several days.

"When I go out of the detention unit, I will personally apologize to the witness I took from hangar number 2. I did that as per an order issued by somebody else, as I was a guard in the detention camp. Had I not executed the order, I might have been killed," Andrun said.

The indictee then referred to allegations that he took three persons out of the hangar. Those persons allegedly never came back and their remains were found after the war. "If you consider that I killed those people, feel free to pronounce capital punishment. This crime will be spoken about for a very long time. And this will affect my family," Andrun said in a shaky, tearful voice.

Defense attorney Hamdo Kulenovic pointed to alleged contradictions between statements given by some witnesses. He specifically referred to the statement given by witness Mirza Colakovic, claiming that he did not recognize the detention location or the part of the detention camp in which he was abused. Kulenovic also said that Colakovic claimed to have been brought to Gabela from Dretelj on September 28, 1993, although Dretelj "was dismantled five days earlier". He wondered about the whereabouts of the witness during these five days. Referring to the events that happened in the Police Station in Capljina, where detainees were interrogated and maltreated, the defense attorney said that Andrun "could not have stopped them" as he did not have control over those policemen.

Kulenovic quoted statements contained in verdicts handed down by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which indicate that "a person who witnesses a crime, but did not participate in it, cannot be considered responsible for that crime".

The defense attorney said the State Prosecution had not managed to prove that Andrun participated in or committed the murders in Gabela detention camp.

The Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina presented its closing arguments on August 13. It called upon the Chamber to sentence the indictee for the sake of "the victims and all of us".

Savic Trial: Saving a Friend
BIRN Justice Report
August 14, 2008

First Prosecution witnesses describe the onset of war in Visegrad, recalling Momir Savic and his unit.

Three members of the Guso Family from Visegrad, who appeared as Prosecution witnesses, recalled what happened in April 1992, describing the activities of "Duke Momir Savic" and his volunteer unit. They said members of the unit participated in the deportation and illegal detention of Bosniaks. "Dragan Savic and Jovan Markovic brought me to the Police Head Office in Visegrad, where I met Captain Dragan, a Lukic man and Momir Savic, who was dressed in camouflage uniform. Captain Dragan and Momir then examined the prisoners. During the course of the examination, they hit me on the head with their fists several times," Ramiz Guso recalled.

The indictment alleges that Savic was a member of a paramilitary group who then became commander of the Third Squad of the Visegrad Brigade of the Republika Srpska Army, VRS. Savic is charged with having participated in deportation, capture, examination, beating, murder and rape of Bosniaks from the Visegrad area in the course of 1992. "Savic was a big man. He had whiskers and he was bitter," said Ramiz Guso, who was detained in the Police Head Office in Visegrad, together, he said, with "23 other Muslims". "Of all the people who were held there, only four of us have survived. They severely beat the detainees. A friend of mine, a Bosnian Serb, whose name I do not want to mention for the reasons of his safety, rescued me from the prison in late April 1992," Ramiz Guso said.

Nizija Guso, Ramiz' mother, said that, following the attack on Jarci village in April 1992, she "ran away from death", together with her family. She said her son was captured, held for seven days and then released. "A person named Miloje rescued him. God saved him first and then Miloje. The man is still alive, thank God," Nizija Guso said.

The third Prosecution witness, Bahrudin Guso, said that other people had told him that "Duke Momir Savic", whom he had known from before and whom he recognized in the courtroom, headed a unit composed of "volunteers". "Momir had black hair. He was average in height and firmly built. Legionar and Seko, who were members of his unit, told me that he was a chieftain," Bahrudin Guso said. Bahrudin left Visegrad, together with his family, on April 24, 1992.

This witness said that his mother, who stayed in Visegrad, told him that Savic gave an ultimatum to families in Drinsko settlement, ordering them to leave their houses because they were located "on Serbian territory".

The indictment alleges that Momir Savic was responsible for deportation of civilians from Drinsko settlement, by "telling them that they would be killed unless they left the settlement and their property, which they eventually did".

The trial is due to continue on Monday, August 18.

[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)

Trial Judges Prepare for Duch Atrocity Case
VOA Khmer
By Mean Veasna
August 6, 2008

International jurists for the Trial Chamber of the Khmer Rouge tribunal have joined their Cambodian counterparts in anticipation of the trial of Duch, whose pre-trial preparations will be completed soon, a tribunal spokesman said Wednesday.

The case of the infamous chief of the Tuol Sleng torture center, who is charged crimes against humanity, will be the first tried of five jailed former leaders of the regime. More than 16,000 Cambodians were tortured and sent to the deaths at the center.

His trial is expected to begin in September or October.

Both French and New Zealand trial judges began working with their Cambodian colleagues last week, and the trial chambers have been equipped and prepared, tribunal spokesman Reach Sambath said.

"The courtroom, the seats for participation of victims, are ready," he said. "And the trial judges have already prepared themselves. The famous judge Sylvia Cartwright, a New Zealand national, arrived this Monday."

Co-investigating judge Marcel Lemonde said the proceedings against Duch were entering the period of closure and would be filed soon to the First Trial Chamber.

A source close to the tribunal said Wednesday the co-investigation judges will likely complete the closing order early this week or late next week, and the First Trial Chamber will hold a meeting to decide the set the date for Duch, around Sept. 15.

"We don't see any obstacles regarding the trial of Duch," Adhoc tribunal monitor Hisham Mousar said.

Duch was held by Cambodian military courts from May 1999 until he was handed to the tribunal last year.

Keat Bophal, head of the tribunal's Victims Unit, said Duch is facing 66 civil complaints.

Cambodian tribunal hit by new kickback allegations
AP via International Herald Tribune
August 6, 2008

Cambodia's genocide tribunal has been hit by new corruption allegations, compelling foreign donors to withhold more than US$300,000 from the proceedings pending a review of the claims, United Nations and tribunal officials said Wednesday.

The new scandal came as the U.N.-assisted tribunal prepared for its first trial, next month, for atrocities allegedly committed during the 1975-79 rule of the Khmer Rouge, who are blamed for the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, overwork and execution.

Cambodian and U.N.-appointed staff jointly run the tribunal with two separate budget lines supported by contributions from international donors.

In a Wednesday statement to The Associated Press, the United Nations Development Program said it was withholding funding for operating expenses and salaries for Cambodian staffers at the tribunal. It did not provide an amount.

It said new kickback allegations surfaced in late June, but provided no other details.

Helen Jarvis, spokeswoman for the tribunal's Cambodian side, said she has not seen any allegations and could not comment on whether they had merit.

None of the 250 Cambodian staff members have yet received their July salaries, she said, adding that the total payroll for the national personnel is about US$300,000 a month. Aside from salaries, it was unclear how much money was being withheld.

"We hope the situation will be urgently solved. Staff need to be paid and indeed deserve to be paid for their work," she said in an e-mail.

Peter Foster, spokesman for the tribunal's United Nations' side, declined to discuss details of the allegations but said they were brought up after June 25 by "more than one" person.

He said the allegations had been submitted to a U.N. official in Cambodia and were being reviewed by the U.N.'s oversight and investigative services office in New York.

The UNDP statement said funding for the month of July was initially held up to await submission from the Cambodian side of a spending plan, "which is a standard procedure to preserve the integrity of the funds.

"Following this, new allegations of kickbacks arose," the UNDP said.

It did not specify how much money was withheld or provide details of the kickbacks.

"We want to ensure that donor funds are used for their intended purpose," it said. "Our aim is to move forward with the work of the tribunal, without sacrificing the integrity of the funds supporting it."

It is the second time the tribunal has faced a graft scandal.

In 2007, allegations arose that Cambodian tribunal staff had paid kickbacks in exchange for their jobs. The tribunal's Cambodian side dismissed the allegations as unsubstantiated.

Cambodian tribunal indicts Khmer Rouge jailer
AP via FoxNews.com
By Ker Munthit
August 12, 2008

Cambodia's genocide tribunal formally indicted a former prison chief of the country's notorious Khmer Rouge on Tuesday, paving the way for a historic trial.

The U.N.-assisted tribunal said in a statement Tuesday that its investigating judges issued the indictment upon ending their investigation of Kaing Guek Eav _ also known as Duch _ whose Phnom Penh prison was used as a torture center.

Duch, charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes, is the first suspect to be indicted by the tribunal. He and four other former senior members of the Khmer Rouge, who held power in the late 1970s, were taken into custody last year.

The radical policies of the communist group are considered responsible for the deaths of some 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, overwork and execution. No senior member of the group has ever stood trial for the atrocities.

The tribunal's announcement marks another "important moment in the history of the court," said Peter Foster, a spokesman for the U.N.-assisted tribunal.

He said the indictment sets the stage for the first trial of the tribunal, which began its work in early 2006. No date has yet been set for a trial, but tribunal officials have previously said it was expected to begin in late September.

Duch, 66, headed S-21 prison, the Khmer Rouge's largest torture facility, which used to be a school and is now the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. About 16,000 men, women and children are believed to have been held there. Only 14 are thought to have survived.

When Duch was detained by the tribunal in July last year, he was charged only with crimes against humanity, with the war crimes charge being added with the end of the investigation against him.

Duch will be tried by a panel of five judges three Cambodian, one French and one New Zealander according to a 2003 pact between Cambodia and the United Nations establishing the tribunal.

The other four suspects being held by the tribunal are former top lieutenants of late Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot, who died in 1998. They are former head of state Khieu Samphan, former chief ideologist Nuon Chea, ex-Foreign Minister Ieng Sary, and his wife Ieng Thirith, who served as the Khmer Rouge social affairs minister.

They also face charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Cambodian politics and disagreements between the government and the U.N. delayed the establishment of the tribunal for years. Its work was further delayed by disagreements among judges over the procedural rules and controversies involving allegations of kickbacks among Cambodian staffers.

The tribunal, which is mostly funded by donations from foreign donors, is facing a budget crunch. The $56.3 million that was originally earmarked proved inadequate because the tribunal has had to recruit more staff and expand its work.

A revised budget estimated the cost of carrying out the tribunal's work through 2010 to be $143 million. The tribunal is $86.7 million short of that goal.

Duch Indictment Outlines Heinous Crimes
VOA Khmer
By Mean Veasna
August 13, 2008

When jailed prison chief Duch faces a Khmer Rouge tribunal chamber in coming months, he will face charges that he was fully responsible for the deaths of at least 12,380 people at Tuol Sleng, as well as war crimes, documents issued this week show.

Investigating judges of the tribunal announced Tuesday they had sent their closing order to the Trial Chamber Aug. 8, setting the stage for the trial stage of the prison chief.

Duch, 65, whose real name is Kaing Kek Iev, now faces both charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, for his role as director of the S-21 prison, and the order forwarded this week gives a detailed outline of charges made against him.

Investigating judges claim he was fully responsible for the 12,380 people who died under his watch, a number that the order said was not the full amount killed.

Duch himself acknowledged that some prisoners who were later killed were not documented at Tuol Sleng.

More than 1,000 people were killed by having their bodies emptied of blood, the order said, citing witnesses, an execution method that was particularly horrifying to prisoners.

Among the prisoners, most were Cambodian, including 200 prison staff, who themselves were subsequently detained there, according to the order, which serves as an indictment.

Prisoners included Muslims, Thais, Laotians, Indians, Westerners and more than 400 Vietnamese, according to order. Of the Vietnamese, 150 would be considered "prisoners of war."

The closing order claims witnesses reported being terribly afraid of Duch, who had the power to order executions.

However, the order says, Duch confessed that "in general cases, high-ranking [officials] told him to prepare to receive prisoners, and most of those prisoners had been arrested and transferred by their respective units."

"But some evidence makes clear that S-21 arrested prisoners by itself," the order said.

Some of them had been accused of belonging to "special agencies" of Vietnam, the order said.

The charge of crimes against humanity was put forward because of the mass killings, torture, detention, abuse, sexual abuse and other methods, the order said.

War crimes was put forward for the intent to kill, injure and cause suffering, as well as denial of rights of judgment, according to the order.

The investigating judges ruled Duch would be held in detention ahead of his trial.

The Trial Chamber will now set up a date for the trial and choose witnesses to appear, co-investigating judge You Bunleng said.

Tribunal Official Removed After Allegations
VOA Khmer
By Sok Khemara
August 14, 2008

The Khmer Rouge tribunal has removed a high-ranking official in charge of personnel, following nagging allegations of kickbacks and irregularities in the troubled courts.

Keo Thy Vuth was removed from his administrative position and returned to work at the Cabinet of Ministers Monday.

Sources close to the tribunal said he may have been removed due to allegations of kickbacks and corruption, or he may have been a scapegoat.

A tribunal spokesman denied Keo Thy Vuth had been fired.

"There was not any sacking at the [tribunal] Monday," the spokesman, Reach Sambath, said. "He was just transferred to work in his original place at the Cabinet of Ministers."

Keo Thy Vuth was replaced by Rong Chhong.

The shuffle comes as 250 tribunal staff have gone unpaid for the month of July, and as the UN and donors reassess their funding following complaints in June of irregularities.

[back to contents]

Darfur, Sudan (ICC)

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

Bashir Finds Strong Support
Inter Press Service
Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani
August 6, 2008

In its first ever move against a head of state, the International Criminal Court (ICC) prepared last month to indict Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes allegedly committed in Darfur.

Since then, most Arab and African leaders have condemned the move, which some local commentators see as politically motivated.

"It's an attempt by certain western countries to internationalise the Darfur problem for their own political ends," Ayman Shebana, political science professor at Cairo University's Centre for African Studies told IPS.

On Jul. 14, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo requested that the court's preliminary panel issue an arrest warrant for al-Bashir on charges of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Violations, said Moreno-Ocampo, were committed by the Sudanese President through the use of military and paramilitary agencies linked to the state in Sudan's western Darfur region since 2003.

According to widely quoted 'international experts', between 200,000 and 300,000 people have been killed in the region since non-Arab Darfuri insurgents took up arms against the government five years ago. The same experts are quoted as saying that some 2.5 million have been displaced by ongoing violence over the same period.

Sudan has rejected the allegations, describing them as "null and false." It puts the number of casualties much lower, at about 10,000 from both sides.

African and Arab leaders have hastened to register their opposition to the ICC move. In the days following the announcement, both the Arab League and the African Union (AU) urged the ICC to delay indictment for a 12-month period to allow Sudan to carry out its own trials.

Egypt has been particularly vocal in its support for al-Bashir, who has ruled over fractious Sudan since 1989.

On Jul. 23, Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit called the move to indict the leader "irresponsible and perilous." The court's accusations against al-Bashir, he warned, "will have negative impact on establishing justice in Darfur."

Days later, President Hosni Mubarak reiterated Egypt's support for Sudan.

"I reject the turning over of any African leader to the court," Mubarak declared at a joint press conference with South African counterpart Thabo Mbeki in Pretoria Jul. 29. He went on to say that efforts were being made to postpone the indictment and that "there are positive indications that the crisis will be resolved."

According to Shebana, the situation in Sudan, which shares a roughly 1,200 km border with Egypt, is of extreme importance to security forces in Egypt.

"Security in Sudan is considered a major part of Egyptian national security," he said. "Egypt plays an important role in keeping the peace in Sudan, both in the south and in Darfur." Shebana points out that Egyptian soldiers account for some 20 percent of the hybrid UN/AU peacekeeping force deployed in the troubled region.

Based on the 1998 Rome Statute, the Hague-based ICC was launched in 2002 with the ostensible mandate of investigating and prosecuting leaders accused of committing genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

"The court is mandated with prosecuting individuals - leaders and high-ranking officials - rather than governments, parties or political regimes," Aymen Abdelaziz Salaama, professor of international law at Cairo University, told IPS.

Sudan is not among 106 countries that have fully signed on to the ICC convention. "Sudan, like Egypt, has signed the charter, but its parliament has not ratified it until now," Salaama said. As a non-signatory, Sudan has argued that the court lacks jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed on its territory.

Salaama says this argument lacks legal foundation. "The court's jurisdiction extends to any country, whether an ICC signatory or not, if the UN Security Council - citing a threat to international peace and security - requests that the court investigate crimes committed in that country."

In 2005, Salaama said, the UN Security Council did exactly that when it passed Resolution 1593, which called on the ICC to investigate crimes allegedly committed in Darfur by the Sudanese state since 2003.

"This is why Sudan's claim - that, as a non-signatory to the ICC, the court lacks jurisdiction - is not legally accurate," said Salaama.

Shebana, however, questioned the international court's motives. He said the Darfur conflict was being exploited - with the ICC's help - by foreign powers greedy for the region's mineral wealth.

"Historically, the lack of development - rather than ethnic differences - has been at the root of the conflict," he said. "The west only began turning it into an international issue after the discovery of uranium and petroleum in Darfur."

Shebana pointed to "considerable evidence of a U.S., French and Israeli presence in Darfur which has promoted rebel activity." He pointed to a move by the Sudan Liberation Party, a major Darfur-based rebel group, to open a representative office in Tel Aviv in Israel earlier this year.

"If the rebels had not been supported and emboldened by these foreign groups, the crisis would have been resolved five years ago," he said.

Shebana said the Sudanese government was not alone in committing violations in the troubled region. "War crimes are certainly being committed," he said, "but by both the government and the rebels."

Shebana suggested that the humanitarian situation in Darfur was being exaggerated by both western NGOs working in the area and media organisations.

"Some humanitarian agencies in Darfur are doing brisk business by inflating the numbers of victims and refugees to obtain more funding from the international community," he said. "Such exaggerations also serve the ends of the foreign powers that want to internationalise the problem with the aim of dividing Sudan."

According to Salaama, one of two possible scenarios could play out in the event an arrest warrant is issued for al-Bashir.

"First, Sudan could simply turn al-Bashir over to the court," he said. "But if it refuses to do so, the ICC can request a UN Security Council resolution, under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, to impose gradual sanctions on Sudan.

"This would begin with the cutting of diplomatic relations," Salaama added, "but could eventually escalate into a naval blockade of the country and then - in a worst-case scenario - the use of military power to force Sudan into compliance with ICC demands."

Tensions, however, appeared to ease on Sunday (Aug. 2), when the UN Security Council issued a decision to extend the UN/AU peacekeeping mission in Darfur by one year. The decision also called for discussions on the postponement of the case against al-Bashir for a 12-month period.

"The UN Security Council decision was a good omen for Khartoum," said Shebana. "Arab and African efforts must continue in order to stave off further escalation against Sudan."

Salaama, however, was more cautious.

"Even if a delay is granted, this doesn't mean the case has been withdrawn by the Security Council," he said.

INTERVIEW: ICC prosecutor dismisses Sudan special courts on Darfur
Sudan Tribune
Wasil Ali
August 11, 2008

(WASHINGTON) – The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Luis Moreno-Ocampo today dismissed the recent move by Sudan to probe Darfur war crimes through the appointment of a special prosecutor. Ocampo said that Khartoum established special courts before but "end up investigating no one".

The ICC prosecutor stressed throughout the interview with Sudan Tribune that the main focus of his work in Darfur is to prevent future crimes against the 2.5 million people in the camps.

The Argentinean born lawyer emphasized that had the duty to present his case against the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir to the judges and that if an arrest warrant is issued the world has the challenge to stop the ongoing crimes in Darfur.

The ICC prosecutor underscored the need to end impunity and said that there should be no immunity for Al-Bashir or any other officials who commit crimes.

On the charges of genocide the ICC official said that his findings are not inconsistent with those of the UN commission of inquiry (UNCOI) that went to Darfur in 2004. He said that the commission concluded that there are no acts of genocide if the government put the people affected by the conflict into camps.

The ICC prosecutor said that the Sudanese government is carrying out a "massive rape campaign" against women in the camps and hindering the delivery of aid to the displaced who are mostly from the African tribes of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups. This he said falls under the definition of genocide.

Ocampo further said that he hopes his investigations will put an end to crimes committed against people in all cases he is investigating including Northern Uganda and Democratic Republic of the Congo (dar).

He rejected the notion that the ICC is targeting the poorer nations saying that the ultimate goal of the court is to apply the law equally in the cases where it has jurisdiction. However he acknowledged that double standards exist in the world before saying that he is trying to work towards a "different world with less double standard".

UN chief says no impunity for perpetrators of atrocities in Darfur
Sudan Tribune
August 12, 2008

(UNITED NATIONS) – The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said today that the International Criminal Court (ICC) must be allowed to continue its investigations in Darfur.

In an interview with the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram Ban expressed confidence "that the ICC will be able to enforce its decisions".

The UN chief also stressed that the ICC is an independent institution.

"I am emphasizing its complete independence. The ICC’s rules and decisions are governed by the court’s body and no third party may influence its work or the judges’ rulings" Ban said.

"The fact that the UN Security Council (UNSC) could hypothetically suspend ICC indictments does not mean undermining its independence or its functions. In the same token when the UNSC refers a case to the ICC like in Darfur, it doesn’t mean they are interfering in its work" he added.

Ban’s statements come three weeks after the ICC’s prosecutor announced that he is seeking an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president Omar Hassan Al-Bashir.

The ICC’s prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo filed 10 charges: three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of murder. Judges are expected to take months to study the evidence before deciding whether to order Al-Bashir’s arrest.

The UN Secretary General has also been reportedly advised by his legal advisers to "distance himself politically" from the Sudanese president.

Asked on the request by African Union (AU) to invoke Article 16 of the Rome Statute and suspend Al-Bashir’s indictment, Ban said it is up to the UNSC to make a decision in this regard.

However he underscored the need to bring Darfur war crimes perpetrators to justice.

"We must prove that there is no longer impunity for those who commit atrocities…We can make peace and justice go hand in hand" Ban said.

In response to a question on why Al-Bashir was singled out when other world leaders committed comparable crimes, Ban said that it was the UNSC which referred the case to the ICC before adding that he expects the court to investigate crimes "irrespective of who committed them or where".

Ban voiced disappointment for lack of progress in resolving the Darfur crisis but vowed to press all parties to sit at the negotiation table. He also sounded optimistic that Sudan will fulfill its obligations despite the ICC row.

Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute, but the UNSC invoked the provisions under the Statute 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.

Sudan takes ICC battle to the UN general assembly
Sudan Tribune
August 15, 2008

(KHARTOUM) – The Sudanese government intends to rally support at the United Nations (UN) general assembly in its conflict with the International Criminal Court (ICC), Sudan Tribune has learned.

Sudan will lobby the UN general assembly for a resolution in its 63rd session next September that would formally request an opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the authority of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to refer cases to the ICC.

The UNSC referred the Darfur case to the ICC in March 31, 2005 despite the fact that Sudan not being a party to the court. However the Rome Statute which forms the legal basis for the ICC empowers the UNSC to refer cases to The Hague based court.

The ICC’s prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo announced in mid-July that he requested an arrest warrant against Al-Bashir.

Ocampo filed 10 charges: three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of murder. Judges are expected to take months to study the evidence before deciding whether to order Al-Bashir’s arrest.

Sudanese officials ruled out recommendations by the Arab League to stand before the ICC and instead decided to resort to a non-binding advisory opinion by the ICJ.

Dr. Hadi Shalluf, who was the defense counsel for Darfur at the ICC and filed a series of motions challenging the jurisdiction of the court, said that the UN general assembly may back Sudan in its request.

"There is nothing in the UN charter that prevents the general assembly from adopting any kind of resolution" he said.

However he acknowledged that such a resolution may put the general assembly "politically" at odds with the UN charter which charged the UNSC with the maintenance of international peace and security.

"UNSC can issue Chapter VII resolutions that are legally binding. Resolution 1593 [Darfur referral to ICC] was adopted under this part of the UN charter" he added.

Shalluf also said he expects the ICJ to advise that the UNSC "did not err in its resolution". He further said that when that happens "Sudan will be in a very weak position" and that Khartoum "will be morally obligated to comply with resolution 1593".

The ICJ Statute states that the court’s advisory proceedings "begin with the filing of a written request for an advisory opinion addressed to the Registrar by the United-Nations Secretary-General or the director or secretary-general of the entity requesting the opinion".

Even though the opinion is not binding, the ICJ convention says that it carries "great legal weight and moral authority".

[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

Comment: Fair Trial vs Confidentiality - Judges at the ICC wrestle with conflicting rights in the trial of Thomas Lubanga.
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
By Eugene Bakama Bope
August 8, 2008

The recent decision by the International Criminal Court, ICC, to suspend the case against former Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga raises critical issues that must be resolved quickly by the court.

How these issues are resolved will have far-reaching effects for the court, but will also impact the pending trials of three others from the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC: Germain Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo, and Jean-Pierre Bemba.

Lubanga has been accused by the court of conscripting children under the age of 15 as fighters and using them in his militia in numerous ethnic clashes that took place in 2002 and 2003.

Lubanga’s trial was due to start on June 23, but was suspended by the ICC judges.

The court contended that that ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, had misused his authority by refusing to disclose more than 200 documents that he had collected from sources at the United Nations.

These documents included information that could have helped in Lubanga’s defence, the judges decided, and so Lubanga could not have a fair trial.

On July 2, the ICC decided to set Lubanga free as a logical consequence of the suspension of proceedings, even though no decision has been made as to Lubanga’s guilt or innocence.

On July 7, the ICC’s appeals chamber agreed to hear Moreno-Ocampo’s challenge to the ICC ruling, and kept Lubanga in detention until the appeal is decided.

The essential issue is a conflict between Lubanga’s right to a fair trial and the ability of the prosecutor to guarantee confidentiality for his sources of information.

Two provisions in the Rome Statute that created the ICC concern confidentiality of documents and the right to a fair trial.

According to article 54-3-e, the prosecutor can agree not to disclose, at any stage of the proceedings, documents or information that he obtained on condition of confidentiality and solely for the purpose of generating new evidence. That confidentiality can be lifted only when the provider of the information consents.

However, article 67-2 stipulates that the prosecutor shall, as soon as practicable, disclose to the defence evidence in the prosecutor's possession or control which he or she believes shows or tends to show the innocence of the accused, or to mitigate the guilt of the accused, or which may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence.

On one hand, the statute allows the prosecutor not to disclose the documents or information he obtained on the condition of confidentiality.

On the other, it directs the prosecution to inform the defence of the evidence that could help the accused.

In order to avoid the same difficulty in the Katanga, Ngudjolo and Bemba cases, the court must find a balanced solution that takes into account both the right to a fair trial and the guarantee of confidentiality.

It rests with the judges to decide on a course of action, if the UN opposes disclosure of the Lubanga case documents.

The action in the Lubanga case has now shifted to the appeals court which must rule on the suspension of the trial.

While the decision of the judges to suspend the Lubanga trial is a sign of their strong desire that the defendant receive a fair trial, it also created a lot of confusion.

It is important now for the ICC to conduct an awareness campaign in the Ituri region of the DRC to explain that the court’s action does not mean the end of the trial. Rather, it is a suspension aimed at protecting the right of the accused to a fair trial.

However the judges resolve the issue, which hopefully will serve both the right of the accused and the prosecutor, their decision will have far-reaching consequences.

It will affect at least three or more pending cases that involve similar militia leaders from the DRC. And it will also serve as important case law in the growing arena of international justice.

Eugène Bakama Bope is the president of the Friends of Law in the Congo.

[back to contents]

Uganda (ICC)

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

Government forgives top Kony rebel
New Vision
By Milton Olupot and Charles Ariko Kampala
August 5, 2008

THE former leader of the LRA peace team in Juba, Dr. James Alfred Obita, was yesterday granted amnesty after 22 years of fighting the Government.

Obita said he returned because he believed in what the Juba peace agreement had achieved.

"After the peace talks, I thought I would set an example. My returning is not a betrayal (of the LRA cause). It is time to come back home," he said.

Together with five others, two men and three women of the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), Obita received his amnesty certificate from the chairman of the Amnesty Commission, Justice Peter Onega, at the commission headquarters in Kampala.

The former ADFâ-àfighters included Silver Mumbere, Fatuma Nakajubi, Hanifa Nalukwago, Sularia Nakimera and Abdlazak Bassajja. They looked well nourished and smartly dressed.

Obita raised the number of LRA rebels who have benefited from the amnesty to 12,841, since the establishment of the Amnesty Commission in 2000. A total of 22,921 fighters from various rebel groups have benefited from the amnesty.

"My word to you is that you are welcome back to Uganda. Help us convince the others to come back home. The choice you have made is a correct one. Wherever you go, home will always be the best," Onega told the six former rebels.

Onega, flanked by commissioners Ganyana Miiro, Thomas Kisembo and Grace Ociiti, explained that the amnesty exonerates them from any crimes they committed during the rebellion.

"I have always said this country is ours and everybody has a right to live here. If we have any problems, we can solve them here. I can assure you that after the grant of amnesty, you will be free people. Feel free and you are welcome to start life afresh," he said.

A beaming Obita, clad in a grey, striped suit, commended the commission and pledged to work with Onega to help woo LRA fighters out of the jungles and end the 22-year-long war that has ravaged the north and eastern parts of the country.

"I will use my presence here to convince those still in the bush to return home. I will be the commission's ambassador," he said.

He added that the commission should be strengthened and facilitated to look after returnees.

The six received packages, including a mattress, jerrycan, two saucepans, a plastic cup and plate, a hoe, packets of beans and maize seeds and sh263,000 each.

Obita said President Yoweri Museveni had directed the internal affairs permanent secretary to help him recover $2m (about sh3.5b) that he lost when the Government froze his Uganda Commercial Bank account in 1987.

Obita said he was convinced that the Juba agreement was good and achieved what the guns could not achieve. He blamed some Ugandans both at home and in the Diaspora for misleading the LRA leader, Joseph Kony, not to sign the final peace agreement.

Obita said he wanted "to sort" himself out shortly before he could travel to his home district of Kitgum.

Commenting on the LRA former commanders, who returned through the DR Congo and are reportedly still held by security agencies, Onega said after receiving amnesty, there was no justification for detaining the former rebels.

"We were surprised when we received the information that some of these ex-rebels were being kept by security agencies. If you receive amnesty, that means you are free. If there are any other charges then they should be taken to court. Let this not confuse the public that when you get amnesty, you get detained."

Who is Obita?

- Obita has been with the LRA for the last 22 years.

- He worked for the external wing of the LRA, based in Nairobi and London.

- Was the LRA spokesperson in the mid-nineties and later secretary for external affairs and mobilisation.

- In 1988, he fell out with LRA chief Joseph Kony, who accused him of trying to make money out of the LRA cause.

- Was re-appointed as technical adviser to the LRA peace team in Juba in 2006.

- Obita replaced David Matsanga as chairman of the LRA team in Juba on April 10 2008.

- He applied for amnesty in July 2008

Is it finally the end of the LRA?
Mail & Guardian Online
By Hany Besada and Vadim Ermakov
August 6, 2008

Joachim Chissano, the former Mozambican president and the United Nations's special envoy to areas affected by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) insurgency in Uganda, recently briefed the UN Security Council in New York on the status of the Ugandan peace process.

The meeting focused on the increasingly bleak prospects for peace between the Ugandan government and the LRA, following rebel group leader Joseph Kony's refusal to sign a final peace agreement in April.

This follows closely on the heels of a failed attempt by the rebel movement to have warrants of arrest issued against Kony and his top commanders by the International Criminal Court (ICC) withdrawn as a precondition for a cessation of hostilities.

The LRA rebels are said to be fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They are alleged to have kidnapped thousands of women and children, forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than 1,5-million people in Uganda's Gulu and Kitgum districts have been displaced by the fighting over the past two decades and are living in temporary camps, protected by the army.

The involvement of the ICC triggered an increase in international opposition against the LRA's numerous crimes against humanity, and significantly slowed down the intensity of attacks on civilians over the past two years, while forcing Kony to resume peace negotiations.

Ugandan army spokesperson Paddy Ankunda reportedly said that he saw no sense in negotiations and strongly favoured military action against the notorious rebel leader who, in Ankunda's opinion, had two options open to him: either handing himself over or being hunted down.

Kony's contempt for international mediators has already dashed hopes that he would sign the peace agreement to put to an end more than two decades of civil conflict. Ideally, he would like to arrange a compromise. Some of his representatives and key negotiators have recently reiterated this position, stressing that the major obstacle to peace is, in fact, the ICC.

More particularly, there are many controversies surrounding the ICC's arrest warrants for LRA leaders. For instance, in Gulu, a northern district of Uganda, people question the legitimacy of the ICC's law, given a number of consequences that resulted in the crimes of the Ugandan army -- commonly known as the Ugandan People's Defence Force -- being overlooked and, instead, placing the blame primarily on the LRA for all the atrocities committed throughout the conflict.

At present, the international community sees Uganda as a country that is willing and able to bring perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity to justice.

Human Rights Watch recently reported that the LRA had carried out at least 100 abductions since February this year, not only in northern Uganda, but also in neighbouring countries. This has further damaged prospects of signing a peace agreement with the LRA.

At present, resolving the conflict requires a truly international approach, and the UN and other top facilitators would need to offer alternative options to revive the peace process, other than those on the negotiation table at present.

The situation is further complicated by Sudan's lack of cooperation with the ICC. Khartoum has been reluctant to work with the ICC in conducting internal trials, given the precarious position in which it finds itself regarding Ahmad Harun, the former Sudanese interior minister accused of war crimes, as well as the most recent indictment against President Omar al-Bashir for alleged crimes against humanity in Darfur, which have left 300 000 people dead and another 2,5-million internally displaced.

Due to Sudan's lack of cooperation, LRA rebels can easily cross the border into Southern Sudan and freely escape any pursuit from the Ugandan army and its allies in the region.

Critics contend that peace in Uganda does not depend totally on the LRA and on Kony's desire for the ICC to grant him immunity. Rather, the ICC has delayed the process further, given the precarious position in which it finds itself.

By granting immunity to Kony, the ICC may establish an unprecedented development in international law and, in so doing, running an ever-greater risk of ruining its reputation. On the other hand, the capture of Kony -- and his extradition to The Hague to face crimes against humanity and war crimes -- risks prolonging the conflict and plunging the region into further misery by provoking his staunchly loyal fighters to continue fighting.

The situation is indeed intricate and puzzling, but difficult choices are necessary if an end is to be made to one of Africa's longest-running conflicts.

Hany Besada is senior researcher and programme leader at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, Canada. Vadim Ermakov is at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, Germany

Uganda can try Kony, says ICC’s Ssebutinde
Daily Monitor
By Paul Amoru
August 8, 2008

The possibility of having Joseph Kony and his top commanders tried in Uganda were rekindled yesterday when a judge working with the International Criminal Court (ICC) said an opportunity still exits.

Justice Julia Ssebutinde said the country can still regain its powers to prosecute the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) leaders since the law establishing the ICC provides room for deferral of the indictments.

"In principle, Uganda can still file a formal inter-party request for the ICC to withdraw from a case, under Article 19 of the Rome statute, which established the court," Justice Ssbutinde said. Ssebutinde, who heads the ICC tribunal trying former Liberian leader Charles Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity was speaking as chief guest at the second annual Abu Mayanja memorial lecture on the theme; "Alternative justice system in context of northern Uganda conflict".

Mayanja died on November 5, 2005 after retiring from active politics. He was a co-founder of Uganda’s first political party – the Uganda National Congress in the 1950s. Mr Mayanja served in posts as deputy prime minister, attorney general and minister of justice and constitutional Affairs between 1988 and 1994 under the NRM government.

Justice Ssebutinde discussed the role of the ICC in the last 10- years and told participants in Kampala that the country has a reason to celebrate the strides so far made by the ICC in its quest to punish perpetrators of human rights abuses.

President Museveni in 2003 invited Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor to investigate possible crimes against humanity in northern Uganda where a war between the LRA rebels and government has taken place.

Subsequently in 2005, the ICC issued arrest warrants for five senior members of the LRA charging them with attacking civilians and the forced enlistment of children into murderous militias. Justice Ssebutinde said the indictments forced Kony to come to the negotiating table. But in return, Kony wants the ICC charges dropped. Justice Ssebutinde’s statement comes after the LRA leader has twice in the last three months failed to show up for the signing of the final peace accord sighting the ICC warrants as the only obstacle to peace.

Religious and cultural leaders from Acholi and many parts of the country, including politicians have called for a truth and reconciliation process, which would require the ICC to step a side in vain. But Justice Ssebutinde who is familiar with operations of The Hague based court in her statements carried a notch higher the hope for a situation that would see the ICC step aside.

"However, she said, a state party like Uganda under the ICC has only one opportunity to apply for the international court to withdraw from a case it has already investigated and set to try the suspects". "Uganda would have to get right its first application to be allowed to try Kony and his commanders," Justice Ssebutinde warned.

"The government would convince the ICC that it is now willing and committed to using its local courts system to try the LRA," she said.

Justice Ssebutinde said before the government applies for the withdrawal, it should ensure that the necessary legislation that will try the suspects are in place and are functional.

The Judge said: "Government will have to convince and persuade the court (ICC) it has sufficient infrastructure to handle these serious cases". These would include, efficient investigating and prosecutorial departments, which she said are still weak and might require a lot of work to bring them to the required caliber.

Justice Ssebutinde said a mechanism of witnesses’ protection among others will have to be in place before the government attempts to apply for the ICC withdrawal if they are serious about getting it right. The Ugandan judiciary recently announced the creation of a Special High Court Division to try war crimes.

The ICC was established under the Rome Statute which in principle assigns the Court a role that is complementary to national systems, and comes in when a member State is unwilling or unable to carry out the investigation or prosecution.

Faulty definition of war crimes hampers court operation
Afrique-en-ligne
August 12, 2008

Kampala, Uganda - Lack of clarity in what constitutes war crimes is hampering operations of a war crimes court, set up to try suspected criminals behind the wanton killings, rape and abduction of children during an over two decades of insurgency in northern Uganda.

The local special court was set up to by-pass indictments by International Criminal Court (ICC) on five top commanders of the vicious rebel force of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), faced with multiple charges of abuses against humanity.

Among measures agreed upon between peace-negotiating teams of the Uganda governm ent and the LRA was to set up a war crimes court to try suspects who committed serious crimes while those of lesser offences be subjected to the traditional justice system called Mato-put.

Principal Judge, Justice James Ogoola, confirmed the court's failure to commence business as scheduled this month, citing the lack of clarity on what constitutes serious crimes and the lack of modalities.

"The law does not define what constitutes serious war crimes and which sanctions should be apportioned for those crimes," Justice Ogoola said, confirming the court's failure to start sitting.

"It should also determine the cut-off date for those crimes. This means that there would be no retrospective application of the law.

"It should also define who is a victim, given the fact that some of the perpetrators were abducted and forced to commit crimes.

"The law should address who is mandated to carry out the investigations.

"The law should deal with issues of witness protection so that the witnesses would not be afraid to testify," Ogoola said in a published interview in the New Vision Tuesday.

The ICC insists that the top five commanders remain wanted for trial in the Hauge, if there is no alternative judicial system to ensure that justice is done.

Ogoola called for the merger of the western punitive system with the traditional restorative mechanisms, aimed at achieving forgiveness as a sure way to guarantee justice.

The indictments remain a sticking issue and the reason why a peace deal is yet to be signed by wanted LRA rebel leader, Joseph Kony, and Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni.

According to Museveni, the special courts are a soft landing pad for wanted LRA commanders.

He said they should embrace the offer for their own good and repeatedly warned the LRA leaders that they would be killed if they dared to resume fighting his government.

Ogoola disclosed that there were a number of constraints, saying three judges had been appointed for the court but there was also need for support staff, literature for the court, equipment and offices.

"A decision must be taken whether the court should sit in the capital Kampala, in the north where the crimes were committed, or in a neutral place.

[back to contents]

The Trial of Alberto Fujimori

Fujimori on Trial

Former Peruvian vice president gave Fujimori information on Montesinos and his connection to Colina
Fujimori On Trial
August 8, 2008

Eighty-eighth session. Máximo San Román Cáceres, who was Alberto Fujimori's Vice President from July 28, 1990 until April 5, 1992, testified during this session that he informed the president about Vladimiro Montesinos and his connection to the Colina military detachment, but that Fujimori didn't take notice.

1. Incidents surrounding the criminal trial

Lessons in witchcraft
In response to the press' recent reports of Fujimori's visits from Salomé Ybargüen and Rosa Chu — who allegedly read the ex-president's future through coca leaves during this session's first recess — former fujimorista congressman, Luis Delgado Aparicio, talked to journalists about different types of witchcraft.

Court extended deadline to turn in evidence
At the request of César Nakazaki, Alberto Fujimori's lawyer, the Court agreed to extend the deadline for turning in evidence until the last of the testimonies.

New witness called
The Court decided to call María Elena Castillo, a journalist from local newspaper La República, to testify in the trial since she interviewed Jesús Sosa Saavedra while he was still a fugitive from justice. In the interview, Sosa implicates Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos — former Commander General of the Armed Forces, currently tried for crimes committed by the Colina Detachment — as well as Fujimori's former personal advisor Vladimiro Montesinos, in Colina's creation, organization and crimes.

2. San Román Cáceres' testimony- Among the most important parts of the witness' testimony for this criminal trial were:

Fujimori and Montesinos in 1990
San Román claimed he was only present at two meetings with Fujimori and personal advisor Montesinos. One of these meetings was in the early morning of July 29, 1990, in Fujimori's room right after he had assumed the presidency on July 28. San Román said he went to tell the president that he had been informed by Rosa Fujimori, the president's sister, of a supposed uprising by the navy. When he was in his bedroom, Fujimori sent for Montesinos. When the advisor arrived, the president asked San Román to leave the two of them alone. The witness also said that the relationship between Fujimori and Montesinos was "very close."

Accusations against Montesinos in 1990
Later, in August 1990, San Román anonymously received an intelligence note listing Montesinos' experience in spying, selling confidential information and association with drug-traffickers. The witness delivered this over personally "to the hands" of Fujimori, additionally informing the president of the Senate's concern regarding Montesinos' past. However, Fujimori limited himself to answer that it was his decision to have Montesinos as his personal advisor and requested that San Román not bring the issue up again.

Accusations against Colina crimes and Montesinos in 1992
In March 1992, San Román again anonymously received an intelligence note, this time connecting Montesinos and other military personnel to the Barrios Altos crime. The note pointed to Montesinos, Santiago Martín Rivas, Carlos Pichilingüe, as well as some other military officials as those responsible, and also gave details on the procedural "errors" during the crime.

Once again, San Román delivered this information to Fujimori, but the then president made no comment regarding it. Fujimori himself testified in this trial that he found out about the Colina Detachment's existence in 1993 through Montesinos.

3. Next session – At the end of the session, the President of the Court announced that the next session would be carried out on Monday, Aug. 11 and that former police colonel Benedicto Jiménez Baca would be summoned to testify.

[back to contents]

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Official Website of the ICTY

UN prosecutor asks court to set rules for Karadzic
International Herald Tribune
August 5, 2008

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands: U.N. prosecutors have asked judges hearing former Bosnian Serb political leader Radovan Karadzic's war crimes case to set rules for his submissions.

They say they cannot make sense of his first submission — in which he said he didn't believe he could get a fair trial — and don't plan any response.

Karadzic declined to plead to the charges against him at his initial appearance July 31, and sent a four-page submission the following day. It said the media is biased against him and the U.S. government wants him dead.

Prosecutors have opposed Karadzic's intention to defend himself and said Tuesday they were not sure what legal standing the document has.

On Aug. 29 Karadzic will again be asked to enter pleas or the judge will enter not-guilty pleas on his behalf.

UN: New judge appointed to war crimes tribunal
AKI Adnkronos international
August 6, 2008

New York, 6 August (AKI) - German judge Christoph Flugge has been appointed to serve on the United Nations war crimes tribunal dealing with the worst offences committed during the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s.

Flugge, 61, will replace Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, also from Germany, who has resigned from the tribunal.

The United Nations Security Council supported UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's intention to select the German jurist.

The incoming judge has a lengthy professional history that includes a stint as a criminal judge in Berlin between 1983 and 1989.

Most recently he served as an expert in criminal matters for the Council of Europe and for the German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation, specialising in reform of the prison system in the former Soviet states of Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Estonia and Lithuania.

Last week, the ICTY formally charged former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic on 11 counts, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Since it was founded in 1993, the tribunal has indicted 161 individuals, mostly Serbs, for crimes committed during the 1990s Balkan wars. More than fifty have been sentenced so far.

Karadzic demands Holbrooke, Albright appear in court
Reuters
Reed Stevenson
August 6, 2008

AMSTERDAM, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic demanded on Wednesday that former U.S. peace mediator Richard Holbrooke and ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appear at the U.N. war crimes tribunal to back his claims of an immunity offer from the United States.

Karadzic, who was transferred to the Hague's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia last week to face war crimes and genocide charges after 11 years on the run, challenged the legality of the case against him, a filing released by the tribunal showed.

In the document, Karadzic repeated his claims that in 1996 Holbrooke had offered him immunity from the tribunal if he disappeared from public life.

Karadzic argued that when Holbrooke realised he could not persuade the court's chief prosecutor to drop the indictment he decided to "liquidate" him instead.

He said several attempts had been made to locate and assassinate him, and that he feared "the long arm of Mr. Holbrooke or Mrs. Albright" could reach him even in jail.

"It is because of this and because of the fact that an agreement between the USA and me has been breached that I wish to challenge the legality of the proceedings in their entirety and as well as any individual step thereof," Karadzic said in the four-page filing, translated into English from Serbian.

A spokeswoman for the tribunal's Office of the Prosecutor did not say whether they would respond to the filing.

Holbrooke, who has repeated his denials of Karadzic's claims since the former Bosnian Serb leader appeared in court for the first time last week, was quoted by a German newspaper as calling the claims "an absurd and laughable lie that Karadzic has been spreading for years".

"It is no more than another lie from the most evil man in Europe," Holbrooke was quoted as saying in Wednesday's Bild.

After repeating many of his claims from a previous filing, Karadzic asked the tribunal to summon Holbrooke, Albright and several others, including former Chief Prosecutor Richard Goldstone, for questioning.

The demands were reminiscent of those made by former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, who died during his war crimes trial in 2006, for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President Bill Clinton to appear in court to testify.

Like Milosevic, Karadzic is planning to represent himself.

Karadzic also filed two other motions on Wednesday, asking for copies of his arrest warrant and orders to freeze his assets.

Arrested in Belgrade with a flowing beard and long hair that disguised him while working as an alternative healer, Karadzic faces 11 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including two of genocide over the 43-month siege of Sarajevo and the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims at Srebrenica. (Editing by Caroline Drees)

"CIA protected Karadžic"
B92
August 10, 2008

A former Hague Tribunal insider has added her comments to claims that Radovan Karadžic enjoyed support from the United States.

Former Hague spokeswoman Florence Hartmann told the Belgrade daily Blic that the UN war crimes court's prosecution on several occasions gave the U.S. exact locations where the former leader of the Bosnian Serbs was hiding.

But, Hartmann says, "they did nothing".

"Information about the fugitives' whereabouts was abundant, however, it would always turn out that one of the three countries – the U.S., Britain or France – would block arrests."

"Sometimes arrest operations were halted by [former French President Jacques] Chirac personally, other times by [former U.S. President Bill] Clinton," she told the daily in an interview published today, and added she spoke "based on authentic statements and documents".

Hartmann claims that during the summer of 2005, two CIA agents asked the Bosnia-Herzegovina police to put an end to a surveillance operation directed at Karadžic's family members, ordered previously by Del Ponte and the Hague Tribunal.

She adds that former Bosnian secret police chief Momir Munibabic was sacked on former High Representative Paddy Ashdown's orders, "for being efficient in his search for Karadžic, and for sending information to Del Ponte".

Hartmann also believes that Karadžic's arrest "was never a problem for Serbia as much as for the West – unlike the case of Ratko Mladic, whom the Hague sees as a firm link of crime that connects Belgrade and Bosnia".

Karadžic, she continued, was known to distance himself from Serbia.

"Now that Karadžic has finally been arrested, he can tell a lot about secret deals that led to the fall of Srebrenica. His testimony represents a great risk for the great western powers," Hartmann is convinced.

According to her, so far no solid evidence emerged that it was the western countries who had handed Srebrenica over in exchange for the Serbs' cooperation in the peace process, but that "if anyone has any knowledge about such secret deals, it's Karadžic".

The former UN war crimes court prosecution spokeswoman also believes that "unless Mladic is arrested in the coming weeks or by the end of the year at the latest, he will never face trial at the Hague".

"We had information at the Tribunal from 1997 until 2006, when I left, that Mladic was in Serbia. Whether he now got lost and where he went, should the government in Belgrade claims he's not there, is all the same. Serbia and the West must extradite him if they wish for Serbia to become an EU member," Hartmann concluded.

"VBA negotiating with Mladic"
B92
August 13, 2008

BELGRADE -- The military security agency (VBA) is negotiating with Hague fugitive Ratko Mladic over his surrender, writes a Banja Luka daily.

According to Glas Srpske's source, the stakes are high, both in terms of "the reward Mladic is seeking for extradition, as well as the sanctions should he fail to turn himself in".

"The authorities insist that Mladic should go to The Hague without any problems. Serbia is determined to wrap up the whole issue of the Hague," besides which, he is faced with an indictment accusing him of genocide in Srebrenica in 1995, states the daily's source.

[back to contents]

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

Official Website of the ICTR

France Denounces Genocide Claim
BBC News
August 6, 2008

France has rejected Rwandan claims accusing French officials of playing an active role in the Rwandan genocide of 1994 as "unacceptable".

On Tuesday, an independent Rwandan commission said France had been aware of preparations for the genocide and helped train the ethnic Hutu militia.

The report also accused French troops of direct involvement in the killings.

Paris has consistently denied any responsibility for the genocide, in which about 800,000 people were killed.

Among those named in the report were the late president Francois Mitterrand and the then prime minister Edouard Balladur.

Two men who went on to become prime minister were also named - Alain Juppe, the foreign minister at the time, and his then chief aide, Dominique de Villepin.

"This report contains unacceptable accusations made against French political and military officials," a French foreign ministry spokesman said.

But Rwandan Information Minister Louise Mushikiwabo said she hoped the French officials named would be indicted for war crimes.

"The government has asked the courts to use this report. We hope that legal proceedings will follow," she is quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

Some 800,000 minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by Hutu militias in just 100 days in 1994.

Earlier this year, France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner denied French responsibility in connection with the genocide, but said political errors had been made.

Testimonies

The Rwandan report says France backed Rwanda's Hutu government with political, military, diplomatic and logistical support.

"French forces directly assassinated Tutsis and Hutus accused of hiding Tutsis... French forces committed several rapes on Tutsi survivors," said a statement from the justice ministry quoted by AFP.

"Considering the seriousness of the alleged crimes, the Rwandan government has urged the relevant authorities to bring the accused French politicians and military officials to justice," the statement said.

It further alleged that French forces did nothing to challenge checkpoints used by Hutu forces in the genocide.

The two countries have had a frosty relationship since 2006 when a French judge implicated Rwandan President Paul Kagame in the downing in 1994 of then-President Juvenal Habyarimana's plane - an event widely seen as triggering the killings.

President Kagame has always denied the charge.

He says Mr Habyarimana, a Hutu, was killed by Hutu extremists who then blamed the incident on Tutsi rebels to provide the pretext for the genocide.

Rwanda: Govt to Charge Senior French Officials in Court
Focus Media
Shyaka Kanuma
August 9, 2008

Following the public release of the bombshell 'Mucyo Commission' report detailing the complicity and active participation of France in the 94 Genocide, Rwanda is preparing to initiate criminal charges against senior French civilian and military officials who served in the administration of former president François Mitterrand.

A Rwanda administration official we cannot name because he spoke strictly off the record gave Focus this news tip.

"I can tell you that the process to file charges against senior members of the Mitterrand administration, both civilian and military, has already begun," said the official.

Much of the basis of Rwanda's case against France can be found in the report compiled by a commission, headed by former justice minister Jean de Dieu Mucyo, to investigate France's role in the Genocide.

The report was made public for the first time last Tuesday. Presenting it, Justice Minister Tharcisse Karugarama was careful to mention that the document isn't a criminal charge against anyone but the result of a careful, detailed inquiry that "does not seek to prove the guilt or innocence of anybody", but rather "to establish the truth of what happened in this country shortly before, during and shortly after the Genocide."

That, according to our source, doesn't mean Rwanda cannot use information in the report to initiate legal proceedings against people complicit in the massacre of a million Rwandans.

The report names a total of 33 citizens of France who had major roles in their country's enabling of the Genocide. It is a 500-page document that meticulously records the complicity of French officials and the French government in the planning, preparation and execution of the Genocide by the regime of Juvenal Habyarimana.

The government of François Mitterrand was so in cahoots with Mr. Habyarimana's regime for instance that, according to the report, when he died it fell upon France's envoy to Kigali, Jean Michel Marlaud, together with a senior member of the French military, Colonel Jean Jacques Maurin, to appoint a successor—one Theoneste Bagosora, alias Colonel Apocalypse.

Messrs. Marlaud and Maurin are two of the officials the Mucyo report names as complicit in enabling the Genocide and who could end up before a criminal court if Rwanda's wishes are realized.

The most notable individuals the Mucyo Report implicates are François Mitterrand himself, former prime minister Dominique de Villepin who during Mitterrand's administration was a senior adviser at the foreign ministry, former defense minister François Leotard, former prime minister Edouard Balladur, Jean Christophe Mitterrand, a former adviser in the presidency and also the son of François Mitterrand, former foreign affairs minister Alain Juppé and others.

"Mark my word, it doesn't matter who these people are or what they think they are, we are going to slap criminal charges against them and request that they stand before a court of justice," said our source.

Mitterrand's people react to the Mucyo report

When the contents of the Mucyo report became public, French officials began sputtering and bellowing with rage. The foreign affairs ministry said it does not "recognize the legitimacy or the competence of the Rwandan commission."

A French parliamentarian, Jacques Myard said, "It is unacceptable for Rwanda to accuse France and French officials of crimes of genocide." Alain Juppé said, "Rwanda has for years been insidiously attempting to re-write history with the aim to turn France into an accomplice of genocide."

It is not difficult to hear in these bellowing voices the astonishment, confusion and even hurt, petulant indignation of those who have always assumed they are human beings of a higher order suddenly waking up to accusations leveled at them by dark-skinned beings who are supposed to always be servile, to only speak up when spoken to and to always be grateful simply for living on the same earth with the great European seigneurs.

To listen to Bernard Kouchner's foreign affairs ministry thunder that it doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the Rwandan commission is to hear a lord of Colonialism who must be the arbiter of everything, including what is or isn't legitimate—and that goes for everything darkies come up with or have to present.

When Alain Juppé complains that Rwanda is attempting to re-write history, it is very obvious who in his mind should always write it. Rwanda has managed what few African nations have: to badly rattle a former colonial master and throw their mental world topsy turvy and mess up their minds. Really big time.

Suddenly, when Jean Christophe Mitterrand, Dominique de Villepin, Alain Juppé, all the accused were least expecting it, Rwanda wants to turn them into a European version of Sudanese President Omar al Bashir (for whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant).

When they were least expecting it, these lords of La Francophonie suddenly can visualize the possibility (no matter how remote) that they might face the same quandary Radovan Karadzic—the former Bosnian Serb leader now in the Hague to answer charges of genocide and crimes against humanity—now finds himself in.

Jacques Myard growls that it is unacceptable for Rwanda to accuse France of crimes of genocide and (Rwandan) Foreign Affairs Minister Rosemary Museminari asks, "What is unacceptable? The contents of the report? The research that went into it? I don't know what they find unacceptable. I think all they're doing is buying time."

Buying time, possibly to organize their thoughts.

French government officials have tried to spin the Mucyo report simply as retaliation by Kigali for the indictment and issuing of international arrest warrants against President Kagame and senior officials of the Rwanda Defense Forces by a French judge, Jean Louis Bruguière in November 2006.

The Mucyo Commission was set up well before that, in April 2006. "If anything it was Bruguière who was retaliating against the Mucyo Commission!" said Minister Museminari.

A damning document

The Mucyo Commission report is a damning document. It extensively quotes French and individuals of other nationalities who were familiar, to varying degrees, with the situation in Rwanda in the early nineties during the Genocide and not long after it.

It extensively uses photographs of French forces in Rwanda in operations such as the notorious Zone Turquoise to provide a safe heaven for defeated Interahamwe militias and ex-FAR to continue their atrocities against defenseless Tutsi civilians.

Photographs show French soldiers stopping people at roadblocks that they man side by side with Interahamwe militias. It quotes correspondence between French government officials and high-ranking members of the Habyarimana regime discussing military logistics.

It quotes people like the UNAMIR commander Romeo Dallaire who says, "French soldiers were completely informed there was a plan of something which could lead to great massacres.

It quotes François Mitterrand uttering the same genocide ideology that informed the activities of Mr. Habyarimana's regime, and Mr. Kayibanda's before that. Said President Mitterrand before the French parliament on June 22, 1994: "Rwanda, like Burundi is primarily populated by Hutus.

The majority of the population thus naturally supports the government of President Habyarimana. If this country were to pass under the dominance of a very minority Tutsi group having its base in Uganda, where some are favorable for the creation of a 'Tutsiland,' it is certain the process of democratization would be interrupted."

The President of France could get away with saying such dangerous things because, one can imagine, all he was talking about were dark skinned people somewhere in the jungle.

The report quotes these and other things and names, incidents and dates and there is a bibliography at the end of it of its sources.

FRENCH OFFICIALS IMPLICATED IN THE MUCYO COMMISSION REPORT AND THE POSTS THEY HELD

Francois Mitterrand: president of the Republic of France
Alain Juppe: foreign affairs minister
Francois Leotard: defense minister
Marcel Debarge: minister of cooperation
Hubert Vedrine: principal private secretary of the president
Edouard Balladur: prime minister
Bruno Delaye: adviser in the president's office
Jean Christophe Mitterrand: adviser in the president's office
Paul Dijoud: head of the Africa and Madagascar desk in the foreign affairs ministry
Dominique de Villepin: assistant head of the Africa and Madagascar desk
George Martres: ambassador of France to Rwanda (1989-93)
Jean Michel Marlaud: ambassador of France to Rwanda (1993-94)
Jean Bernard Merimee: French ambassador to the UN (1991-95)

Military officials

Admiral Jacques Lanxade
Gen Christian Quesnot
Gen Jean Pierre Huchon
Gen Raymond Germanos
Col Didier Tauzin
Col Gille Chollet
Col Bernard Cussac
Lt Col Jean Jacques Maurin
Col Gilbert Canovas
Col Renee Galinie
Col Jacques Rosier
Cpt Gregoire de Saint Quentin
Maj Michel Robardey
Maj Denis Roux
Capt Etienne Joubert
Col Patrice Sartre
Cpt Marin Gillier
Lt Col Eric de Stabenrath
Col Jacques Hogard
Gen Jean Claude Lafourcade

Calls for France to Rethink its Africa Role
The New Times
Robert Marquand
August 12, 2008

Paris - A bombshell of a report by Rwanda [last] week implicating high-ranking French officials in the arming and training of Hutu forces that committed genocide in Rwanda – could have been issued last November.

President Paul Kagame sat on the 500-page study, approved by the Rwandan Senate, for months.

It was a time of some bonhomie with France. President Nicolas Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, much liked in Kigali, were working on a new rapprochement policy – after Rwanda broke all ties with France in 2006 over a French judge's indictment of Mr Kagame for allegedly ordering an assassination in 1994.

Kagame, a Tutsi, appears to have lost patience with France. He had hoped that the 2006 indictment would be renounced and that high-level Hutus still living in France would be deported to Rwanda to face genocide charges.

Still, what is likely the last major report on the 1994 Rwandan genocide that killed more than 800,000, leaves France with an embarrassing problem – one cutting to the heart of its own political elite, to a network of French unofficial "parallel structures" of commerce and intelligence in Africa, and to how a major power will deal with thorny questions of justice about its behavior in the postcolonial world.

"The French know this report is dynamite and wanted to keep it from seeing the light of day," says Andrew Wallis, author of "Silent Accomplice," a recounting of alleged French backing of the Hutu government in Rwanda in the early 1990s.

"This creates a new chapter and ends an old one. The question is, where do the two sides go now? The French tried in every way to unseat Kagame, but now recognize he is here to stay. But you aren't going to get an apology from the French.... The Hutus were armed and trained by a foreign power that walked away and said 'I never did it.' "

The details in the Rwandan document – its naming of French political and military officials, its recounting of French weapons sales, French training, incidents, times, dates, and places of specific crimes – have so far been treated with scorn, and a blanket denial in Paris.

French defense minister Hervé Morin told Radio France Internationale Thursday that French investigators in 1998 found French soldiers in Rwanda were "beyond reproach" and said they saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Whether Kagame, whose profile in Africa has been rising, will attempt to push a prosecution at a time when the West has been touting the arrest of Balkan leaders accused of war crimes, as well as an International Criminal Court indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, is unknown.

Tom Cargill, Africa expert with the London think tank Chatham House, told Reuters, "I think it all points to a profound disturbance in international relations caused by the emergence of an international legal system....

The very idea that there might be a legal process ... quite separate from politics is causing many people in many countries to rethink how they approach international relations."

Paris and Kigali have spent years disputing France's role in the 100-day killing spree that became the last full-scale genocide of the 20th century.

Some diplomatic sources in Paris say the Kagame report, produced by the Mucyo Commission, is an effort at distracting attention from Tutsi crimes that took place after 800,000 Hutu moderates and Tutsis were slaughtered.

Yet the respected French daily Le Monde this week said the evidence presented in the Rwandan study means the issue can no longer be ignored. It argued that passionate back-and-forth charges between France and Rwanda has hidden the truth for more than a decade, and that "France has to reply to the accusations."

Much of the French complicity cited by the Mucyo Commission has been described or published for years by authors, non-governmental organizations, journalists, and eyewitnesses. Survie, a French NGO, has spent decades following the Rwandan question, investigated the French role exhaustively, and brought out "L'horreur qui nous prende au visage," a 600-page work in French that came out in 2005.

"Until Rwanda in 1992, we tried to work with French political parties to improve French policies in Africa," says Sharon Courtoux, a co-founder of Survie. "But the genocide, which was clear to see even before it happened, changed everything.

Rwanda proved to us that there was absolutely no limit to what people were capable of doing, in defending their interests."

The 1998 French parliamentary investigation into its mission in Rwanda found that "mistakes were made," but that France was not knowingly involved in or complicit in the crimes committed by military and paramilitary forces.

Yet Survie's study, and the Munyo Commission, presented compelling evidence that France trained government and paramilitary forces.

"All roads to the truth were opened up in the 1998 investigation in France," argues Ms. Courtoux, "but they did not go to the end of the road."

Mr Wallis, reporter Chris McGreal, and Survie accounts point particularly to the French role in instances like "Operation Turquoise" – an attempt to create a safe haven for the Hutu government and peoples, which took place in the mountains of the south, a place called Bisesero. French soldiers were instructed to go into the zone.

When they did, hundreds of Tutsis who were hiding in the hills thought they were coming to save them, according to Wallis. The Tutsis came out of the hills, then the French soldiers were instructed to withdraw – exposing them to the Hutu Interahamwe militia squads (who had allegedly received training from the French).

"The Interahamwe just clapped their hands at that point," says Wallis. "These Tutsis had been impossible to route out, and now they were attacked and killed."

Mr McGreal, who was in Rwanda at the time, spoke to the French colonel who was giving the orders, who identified himself as Didier Thibault. He said that he was taking orders from the "legal organization," the Hutu government.

He was actually Col. Didier Tauzin – a man who had advised the Rwandan Army and, according to a 2007 report by McGreal, had "commanded the French operation that halted the RPF [Tutsi] advance on Kigali a year earlier." That advance had been an effort by the Kagame forces to end the killing in the Hutu-run capital.

[back to contents]

Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)

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

Special Court for Sierra Leone
The Press Office of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
August 4, 2008

Freetown

Final arguments in the Special Court trial of The Prosecutor vs. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao ("the RUF trial") will take place on 4th and 5th August 2008 in Trial Chamber I in Freetown. Proceedings will start each day at 9:30 a.m.

The proceedings are open to the public. Journalists are invited to attend.

The RUF trial is the last of three trials taking place in Freetown. A trial judgment in the RUF case is expected in October. Additional information is available on the Special Court's website, at http://www.sc-sl.org/RUF.html

Proceedings in two other cases, one involving three former leaders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and the other involving two former leaders of the Civil Defence Forces, are complete, including appeals.

Closing Arguments Conclude in RUF Trial
Outreach and Public Policy Office of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
August 5, 2008

The Judges of Trial Chamber I heard closing arguments Monday and Tuesday in the trial of three former leaders of Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front (RUF). In two days of submissions, lawyers for the Prosecution and for the Accused – Issa Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao – made presentations to the Court and answered questions relating to evidence presented in the trial, and to the application of law.

During the trial, which opened in Freetown on 5 July 2004, the Judges heard evidence from 85 witnesses called by the Prosecution and an equal number called by the Defence. The final witness testified on 25 June 2008 as the Defence case came to an end.

Deputy Registrar Binta Mansaray hailed the closing arguments as a "significant milestone" for the Special Court as it works to complete its mandate.

"It has been a long process to get to where we are today, but the fact that the closing arguments took place on schedule marks an important step in the life of the Court", Ms. Mansaray said. "By showing that justice can be delivered on time and in accordance with the highest standards of international law, we will not only have lived up to our mandate, but we will also have left a legacy in law for the people of Sierra Leone".

The Judges will now retire to consider their Judgment in the case. A Trial Judgment is expected later this year.

The RUF trial is the last of three Special Court trials held in Freetown. The trials of three former members of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and two members of the Civil Defence Forces (CDF) are complete, including sentencing and appeals.

The Special Court's trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor is continuing in The Hague. Since it got underway in January, the Court has heard testimony from 35 Prosecution witnesses.

Joseph F. Karama Appointed Deputy Prosecutor of Special Court
Outreach and Public Affairs Office of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
August 6, 2008

Prosecutor Stephen Rapp announced today the appointment of Sierra Leonean lawyer Joseph F Kamara as Deputy Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Mr. Kamara is the first Sierra Leonean to occupy the post. He succeeds Dr. Christopher Staker who has held the position since July 2005.

Mr. Kamara, a Senior Trial Attorney in the Office of the Prosecutor, joined the Special Court in 2004. Most recently he led the Prosecution team in the successful prosecution of two former leaders of Sierra Leone's Civil Defence Forces militia.

"Mr. Kamara is an individual of outstanding legal ability and integrity," said Mr. Rapp.

"I look forward to working with him as my Deputy Prosecutor to complete the mission of achieving justice for the grave and massive crimes committed against the innocent people of this country."

Joseph Kamara said he was looking forward to the challenge.

"This is a significant milestone in the history of the Court," he said. "I promise to work to promote the protection of fundamental human rights and to bring the workings of the Special Court closer to the people of Sierra Leone"

Under the Special Court Statute, the Deputy Prosecutor is appointed by the Government of Sierra Leone in consultation with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Prosecutor. His appointment has been approved and will take affect on 15 August 2008.

"This appointment reflects the close partnership between the government and the international community that has become one of the hallmarks of this institution," said Rapp.

The Prosecutor also recognized the significant contribution of Dr. Staker to the work of the Prosecution.

"Dr. Staker has provided tremendous service during his tenure as Deputy Prosecutor. His expertise has proved invaluable, not only in leading the appeals proceedings but also on a wide array of legal issues that have arisen during the trials."

Before joining the Special Court Mr. Kamara served for eight years as a prosecutor in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of Sierra Leone, where he rose to the rank of Senior State Counsel. He later worked in private practice, both domestically and for several firms in Washington, DC.

Mr. Kamara is a graduate of the Faculty of Law at Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone. He also holds a Masters in Law from Southern Methodist University in the United States.

Sierra Leone: Former Rebel Commanders Awaiting Judgment
Inter Press Service (Johannesburg)
Lansana Fofana
August 7, 2008

Final arguments in the lengthy trial of three former commanders of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) have ended in Freetown, making way for judgment which is expected by the end of this year.

The three -- Issa Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao -- have been on trial since July 2004, following their arrest and indictment by the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone on an 18-count charge of war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian laws.

The former president of Liberia, Charles Taylor, is also being tried by the Special Court, accused of having provided support to the RUF in exchange for so-called "blood diamonds". For security reasons, his trial is taking place in the Hague.

Four years into the trials, public interest is still high, as the people wait for justice to be dispensed. The court earlier this year sentenced two sets of militia leaders, two from the pro-government civil defence force (CDF) and three from the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), a splinter group from the national army that ousted the elected civilian government in a May 1997 coup, remaining in power for nine months before it was itself toppled by a Nigerian-led regional intervention force.

Jabati Mambu, a 25-year old who had his right hand chopped off at the wrist by rebel forces when they invaded Freetown in January 1999, is still bitter.

"I want to see justice done to the three RUF commanders. I was a school going boy at the time when I was captured by the rebels and mercilessly amputated. Now, most of the rebels have been rehabilitated and given skills training while I and other amputees languish with our scars. We know of huge donor assistance coming through for us but we never receive it. This is just too unfair; and so if these people are punished, that will be justice for us the victims."

Some of the testimony by witnesses has been horrific, reporting mass murders and rape, to mutilation of body parts and cannibalism. Witnesses have spoken of fighters disemboweling pregnant women, attacking civilians and hacking off limbs, locking whole families in their houses and set ablaze, with anyone attempting to escape shot immediately.

In 1999, the RUF signed a peace deal with the government of then-president Ahmad Tejan Kabba and transformed itself into a political party; but failed miserably in multi-party elections three years later, losing the presidential race and failing to secure even a single seat in parliament.

A reconciliation process was set in place, with all factional fighters granted blanket amnesty. But a deal agreed between the United Nations and the Sierra Leonean government in 2002 saw the setting up of the "Special Court," with the mandate of prosecuting "those who bear the greatest responsibility" for heinous crimes committed during the civil conflict.

The president of the Coalition of Civil Society organisations, Charles Mambu, in an interview with IPS, laments: "The people of Sierra Leone indeed need reconciliation. However, the atrocities committed by the RUF deserve maximum punishment. This country cannot condone impunity anymore because we do not want a repeat of our immediate ugly past."

There is hardly any support for the RUF in the country. A few of their leaders who have avoided indictment by the special court today appear apologetic. Eldred Collins, a former spokesperson for the movement, appeals for clemency for his colleagues in detention.

"We agreed to a peace pact and the war was brought to a close. I don't believe the trial of the three gentlemen at the special court is in the good spirit of national reconciliation. I believe they should be released and let bygones be bygones," Collins says.

Collins, though, hardly dares express such views openly; not whilst the nearly 10,000 amputees and war wounded are exasperated by the fact that the ex-combatants were compensated by the government and donors with skills training, while the victims are yet to benefit from any such programme.

The two earlier trials of CDF and AFRC personnel resulted in sentences of between six and fifty years.

The court's spokesperson Peter Anderson remarks: "The (special) court has an agreement with some countries in the region which have promised to provide detention facilities for those convicted. These facilities have to meet international standards and as far as it is now, Sierra Leone's prisons are not up to such standards so those found guilty would have to serve out their sentences outside of Sierra Leone."

Sierra Leone's prisons do not meet international standards such as in the areas of food, accommodation and recreational facilities. Anderson also points to the many jail breaks that have taken place in the country, in most cases involving armed rebels or renegade soldiers who broke into prisons to free their colleagues. The fear of convicted war criminals escaping resonates wiith many Sierra Leoneans.

Abdul Sesay, a 45-year old auto mechanic who lost four relatives during the rebel attack on the capital Freetown, in January 1999, says, "I don't think it is wise keeping those people in our jails. They are very dangerous and we have witnessed many incidents where the prisons are broken into and hard core criminals set free only to unleash terror on us. Let them serve their sentences somewhere else; that will make me feel good."

The court is expected to end its work in the first half of 2009.

[back to contents]

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

In Focus: Special Tribunal for Lebanon (UN)

UN chief determined to see Special Tribunal established: Ban committed to ‘culture of holding criminals accountable’
The Daily Star
August 4, 2008

BEIRUT: United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in remarks published Saturday he was keen on having the Special Court for Lebanon see light "because the international organization is committed to the principle that criminals should not enjoy immunity."

The pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat reported that Ban made the remark during a reception hosted by the Egyptian mission to the UN. "You shouldn't doubt my commitment to the culture of holding criminals accountable for their acts and you shouldn't doubt my commitment to the international tribunal for Lebanon [to try suspects in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and related crimes]," Al-Hayat quoted Ban as saying.

Also commenting on the international tribunal and stressing the need to castigate criminals, Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar said in remarks published Sunday he had "yet to examine the full dossier concerning the international court."

In an interview with Kuwaiti daily Al-Qabs, Najjar said the Lebanese were determined to reveal the truth behind the series of political murders that shook the country from 2004 to 2007.

"Failing to incarcerate criminals would reflect weakness and encourage perpetrators to pursue their criminal schemes," he said, adding that assassinations "poisoned the lives of the Lebanese for a long time."

"We will not rest until we reveal the truth behind those horrific assassinations," he said.

Najjar added that the process of establishing the Special Court for Lebanon "still requires some more time and conditions to be established." He also voiced hope that the tribunal would not be politicized "in order to prove that Lebanon is a civilized country and that the Lebanese are responsible people."

The justice minister said that the 2009 parliamentary elections, in addition to introducing reforms to the Lebanese administrative system, "are likely to ensure that the tribunal won't be politicized."

Najjar added that national dialogue among Lebanese groups was likely "to help the Lebanese solve all pending issues and provide the framework for building a proper state."

"[Hizbullah leader Sayyed] Hassan Nasrallah's recent call for dialogue among the Lebanese in addition to Syrian-Israeli talks are likely to appease tensions in Lebanon and allow various groups to launch dialogue," he added.

Meanwhile, a source at the United Nations had told As-Safir newspaper in remarks published Thursday that that the international tribunal is set to begin its work in early 2009.

The source, who is close to the UN secretary general, said that the Security Council had agreed last month to extend the mandate of chief UN investigator Daniel Bellemare until the end of this year, but the source raised doubts on whether the Council would agree to extend Bellemare's mandate again.

"This means that at the end of the year, the investigator will assume his new position as prosecutor for the international court," the source at the UN added, an indication that Bellemare had made progress in the probe into Hariri's February 2005 assassination.

"I believe that [Bellmare] now has something that will enable him to proceed to assume the position of prosecutor," the source said.

According to the source, Bellemare is not planning to disclose the names of the accused, but rather he will deliver them to the investigating judge, who will in turn decide whether to accept or reject the requests for detention.

The UN source said that Ban preferred not to announce the names of the Lebanese and international judges until the end of the year "in order to reduce expenses and also to protect their lives." He added that as soon as the judges' names are announced, they will be transported to The Hague and placed under guard.
The tribunal is based at a former Dutch intelligence headquarters in a suburb of The Hague.

UN calls on Lebanese judges to quit for Hariri court roles
The Daily Star
August 8, 2008

Beirut - The international tribunal that will try the suspects in the assassination Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and related crimes is set to begin its work by the beginning of next year, a high ranking U.N. source told As-Safir on Thursday.

The source, who is close to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said the U.N. chief "has pledged clearly that progress will continue towards establishing the tribunal," regardless of the latest political developments in Lebanon with respect to the election of a new president and the formation of a new government.

The same source indicated that although the Security Council had agreed last month to extend the mandate of chief U.N. investigator Daniel Bellemare until the end of this year, he did not believe that the Council would agree to extend Bellemare's mandate again.

This means that at the end of the year, the investigator will assume his new role as prosecutor for the international court, the U.N. source added, an indication that Bellemare has made progress in the probe into Hariri's Feb. 2005 assassination.

"I believe that he now has something that will enable him to proceed to assume the position of prosecutor," the source said.

Bellemare is not planning to disclose the names of the accused, but rather he will deliver them to the investigating judge, who will in his turn decide whether to accept or reject the requests for detention.

The U.N. source said that Ban preferred not to announce the names of the Lebanese and international judges until the end of the year, in order to reduce expenses and also to protect their lives. He added that as soon as the judges' names are announced, they will be transported to The Hague and placed under guard.

The tribunal is based at a former Dutch intelligence headquarters in a suburb of The Hague.

Al-Jisr Says International Commission Should Investigate Tripoli Bombing
Naharnet Newsdesk
August 13, 2008

Future Parliamentary bloc MP Samir al-Jisr said on Wednesday that the international commission investigating ex-Premier Rafik Hariri's assassination should also probe the latest Tripoli bombing. "We urged the Lebanese government to ask the (U.N.) Security Council to add this crime to the series of crimes that the international commission" is probing, al-Jisr said following a meeting at his residence in Tripoli with MPs Mustapha Alloush, Mohammed Kabbara and Musbah Ahdab.

Al-Jisr denounced the bombing that claimed the lives of innocent people and wished speedy recovery for the injured.

He declared full support to the Lebanese army and the security forces.

[back to contents]

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia

Official Website of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia

Tipoteh Prevented Taylor’s Extradition …Testifies At TRC Hearings
TRC Press Release
August 6, 2008

Veteran politician Dr. Togba Nah Tipoteh said he prevented the deportation of former President Charles Taylor from both the United States and Ghana during the reign of slain President Samuel Kanyon Doe.

Dr. Tipoteh said he intervened to stop the extradition of Mr. Taylor first from the US and then Ghana because he was convinced that the former president could not have received a fair trial under the government of President Doe.

Addressing commissioners of Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Monday at the ongoing Thematic, Institutional and Inquiry Hearings at the Centennial Memorial Pavilion in Monrovia, Dr. Tipoteh said he stopped the extradition because the Doe government was characterized by gross human rights abuses and excesses.

Taylor was arrested first in the United States and later Ghana upon the request of the then government for allegedly embezzling nearly a million dollars while he served as Director General of the General Services Agency (GSA).

Tipoteh said during Taylor’s extradition proceedings in the US he was contacted by then US attorney general Ramsey Clarke at which time he intervened to stop his extradition to Liberia. When Taylor again fled the United States to Ghana, Dr. Tipoteh said he also intervened to stop an attempt by the Ghanaian government to send him back to Liberia.

The first Minister of Planning for Economic Affairs in the People Redemption Council (PRC) military junta said he got acquainted with Taylor when they served in the PRC government.

Meanwhile, Dr. Tipoteh has recalled what he said was the cruelty of the hut tax policy of past governments which he said subjected the Liberian people to unwarranted suffering and hardship.

He recounted how the government of former President William V. S. Tubman subjected poor and low income earners, mostly farmers in rural Liberia to compulsorily paying hut tax.

Dr. Tipoteh said the policy was cruel and brutal. He recounted the experience of a poor man in Sinoe County who he told Commissioners was tied and maltreated for delinquency in paying the hut tax.

He vowed to resist any attempt by future governments to impose hut tax on the Liberian people.

[back to contents]

United States

Guantanamo Habeas Petition Procedures Bill Introduced in Senate
Jurist
By Deirdre Jurand
August 4, 2008

US Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have introduced a bill designed to establish a procedure for all habeas corpus petitions made by Guantanamo detainees. The Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act of 2008 responds to recently raised concerns by US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who recently stressed that in his view it is inappropriate for the judicial branch to outline the process for trying terrorism suspects and that Congress and the Executive branch are best suited to form such policies.

The bill states that:

An application for habeas corpus filed under paragraph (1) by or on behalf of a covered individual— (A) may challenge the legality of the continued detention of the covered individual; and (B) may not include any other claim relating to the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of the covered individual or any other action against the United States or its agents.

Under the bill, the government would have the burden of proving that the detainee is a valid enemy combatant, the government could withhold classified information essential to national security in certain circumstances even though the detainee would have some discovery rights, and detainees could not be released into the US. In a statement issued Friday, Graham specifically said that the bill affords a solution to the habeas "problem" created by the recent US Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush that "allows detainees due process without compromising national security."

Legal Debate Continues After the First Conviction of a Guantánamo Detainee
Christian Science Monitor
by Liam Stack
August 8, 2008

The first war crimes trial held in the United States since World War II ended this week in a mixed verdict against Yemeni national Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the personal driver of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. After a two-week-long trial and three days of deliberations, the military court in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, convicted Mr. Hamdan of providing material support for terrorism by driving Mr. bin Laden around Afghanistan. In spite of the conviction, legal debate regarding the trial rages on.

Hamdan is the first of as many as 80 Guantanamo detainees expected to be tried for war crimes in the near future.

Critics of the court say the trial did not adhere to American standards of justice and that Hamdan, a chauffeur, was not an important player in Al Qaeda, a view echoed by the presiding judge in the case.

According to Reuters, Hamdan was acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiring with Al Qaeda to kill civilians.

While Hamdan was convicted on five counts of providing material support for terrorism, the judge said the charges duplicated each other and ordered that he be sentenced only for one count, which he summarized as "driving Mr. bin Laden around Afghanistan."

The mixed verdict is "a setback for military prosecutors," who had hoped for a conviction on all counts, reports The New York Times. The article adds that both sides tried to emphasize the importance of the trial by portraying it as the heir to the 1940s Nuremberg trials against the former Nazi leadership. The defense team criticized the Nazi rhetoric as theater, saying that personal servants of the Nazis were never considered war criminals.

The rules for the Hamdan trial were laid out in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which was modified after the Supreme Court ruled in June that defendants convicted before military courts must be allowed to appeal to a federal civilian court.

Still, human rights activists argue the trials do not meet American or international standards of justice, reports the Associated Press.

Under the military commission, Hamdan did not have all the rights normally accorded either by U.S. civilian or military courts. The judge allowed secret testimony and hearsay evidence. Hamdan was not judged by a jury of his peers and he received no Miranda warning about his rights.

Hamdan's attorneys said interrogations at the center of the government's case were tainted by coercive tactics, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement.

All that is in contrast to the courts-martial used to prosecute American troops in Iraq and Vietnam, which accorded defendants more rights.

Hamdan's attorneys maintain their client's innocence. They say that the crimes he has been convicted of amount only to acting within his capacity as Bin Laden's driver and do not constitute war crimes. They also say his conviction under a legal regime created five years after his arrest in 2001 is an illegal case of retroactive prosecution. Under the Military Commissions Act, Hamdan's conviction is automatically appealed to a higher military body. After that, lawyers say they will appeal to a federal civilian court, reports Agence France-Presse.

Defense lawyers said they would appeal and were optimistic the case would be taken up by federal civilian courts, which have previously questioned the administration's prosecution and treatment of Guantanamo inmates.

"I am very confident that this will go on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia if nothing else to challenge many aspects of this system," said military lawyer Brian Mizer from Hamdan's defense team....

They also argue that Hamdan was convicted under a law adopted in 2006, which established the military commissions, long after he was captured in 2001 in Afghanistan.

Prior to his conviction, Hamdan's defense succeeded in getting the judge to subtract five years from his sentence to account for the time he has spent in detention at Guantanamo. But the agreement may have little effect. The Bush administration has signaled that even in the event of a full acquittal on appeal, defendants such as Hamdan, who are considered enemy combatants, can be held until the end of the war on terror. In practice, that could mean an indefinite detention, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Despite the potential for a sentence less than or equal to the time he already has served, Hamdan has been told by his lawyers of the Bush administration's intent to keep all branded "enemy combatants" detained indefinitely, regardless of any acquittals.

Swift said that position would be challenged vigorously by the defense.

Hamdan, who reportedly possesses only a fourth-grade education and cannot ascertain his exact age, was not involved in the planning or execution of any terrorist actions, maintain his lawyers. The tribunal's judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, seemed to agree. In a sentencing hearing that followed Hamdan's conviction, Captain Allred refused to allow an FBI agent to testify about his experiences at the World Trade Center site on Sept. 11, 2001. He said that Hamdan was "such a small player" in Al Qaeda that the events of the day were not relevant to his specific case, reports Reuters.

Later in the sentencing hearing, the court heard from psychiatrist Emily Keram, who interviewed Hamdan for more than 120 hours during his five years of detention at Guantanamo. According to USA Today, Dr. Keram testified that Hamdan was a poor man, drawn to working for bin Laden because he hoped to use the high salary to start a family. When he learned about Al Qaeda's attacks on civilians, Keram says he felt "betrayed."

Orphaned at age 10 and with little family in Yemen, Hamdan dropped out of school and spent years in Yemen's capital, Sana, driving a taxi. Keram said Hamdan was desperate to start a family. Yemeni custom demands a payment of thousands of dollars to a family for the right to marry a woman, and his job would never make him that much.

That's when he "found" bin Laden, Keram testified. He was paid $100 to $150 a month to drive him, and bin Laden gave him $1,000 to help with the payment to his future wife's family.

Hamdan twice left Afghanistan and spent months with his family, Keram said. Not only was he disinterested in the holy war being waged against the United States by al-Qaeda, but he told Keram he couldn't understand some of the religious overtures being discussed all around him.

Guantanamo detainee files rights commission complaint against US
Jurist
by Devin Montgomery
August 8, 2008

Guantanamo Bay detainee Djamel Ameziane Wednesday filed a complaint against the US with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), alleging that he had been tortured, given inadequate medical treatment, and denied other basic rights. The complaint was filed on Ameziane's behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Center for Justice and International Law, and was the first to be brought by a detainee. The groups contend that Ameziane's treatment violates conditions of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and that Ameziane has been denied timely review of his habeas corpus petition by the US, despite the US Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, where it held that detainees have the right to bring such petitions.

The advocacy groups stated:

Djamel Ameziane is a prisoner at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he has been held virtually incommunicado, without charge or judicial review of his detention, for six and a half years. While arbitrarily and indefinitely detained by the United States at Guantánamo, Mr. Ameziane has been physically and psychologically tortured, denied medical care for health conditions resulting from his confinement, prevented from practicing his religion without interference and insult, and deprived of developing his private and family life. The stigma of Guantánamo will continue to impact his life long after he is released from the prison. These harms, as well as the denial of any effective legal recourse to seek accountability and reparations for the violations he has suffered, constitute violations of fundamental rights under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (“American Declaration”). The U.S. government, as a signatory to the Declaration, is obliged to respect these rights vis-à-vis Mr. Ameziane by virtue of holding him as its prisoner.

The groups asked the IACHR to issue "precautionary measures" to prevent the US from committing further alleged abuses against Ameziane, to consider his release in a timely manner, and to ensure that he is not returned to a country where he could face abuse once he is released. AFP has more.

In June, a special investigator for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCEPA) joined numerous international groups and rights activists in calling for the closure of the Guantanamo detention centers. In February, the leaders of 34 international bar associations and law societies sent a letter to US President George W. Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper urging the "immediate closure" of the facility. Last October, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism Martin Scheinin called on the US to quickly prosecute or release terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay so that the US can close the detention center. In May, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reiterated President Bush's August 2007 claim that the US wants to close the base, but that both legal and logistical impediments make the closure difficult.

Detainee May Not Go Free After Sentence
Washington Post
by Josh White
August 10, 2008

The short sentence a military jury handed down this week to the first man convicted of terrorism-related charges at a Guantanamo Bay trial has taken the Defense Department by surprise, spurring high-level discussions about what to do with Salim Ahmed Hamdan when his sentence expires in January.

Hamdan's sentence of 5 1/2 years, which amounts to five more months in U.S. custody, was far lighter than some Pentagon officials had expected. Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of at least 30 years, and now officials are preparing for the possibility of having to set him free or hold him indefinitely as an "enemy combatant."

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said it has always been the Defense Department's position that detainees could be held as enemy combatants even after acquittal at military commissions or after serving a prison sentence. "That's always been on our minds in terms of a scenario we could face," he said. "He will serve his time for the conviction and then he will still be an enemy combatant, and as an enemy combatant the process for potential transfer or release will apply."

Hamdan, who was convicted of lending material support to terrorism as Osama bin Laden's driver, was a test case for the military commissions system, and Defense Department officials said the short sentence proves that the system is even-handed.

But military law experts said yesterday that it is unlikely his case's outcome will predict future verdicts or sentences because of its set of facts -- including Hamdan's role as a driver and not a terrorist fighter or operative. Some said Hamdan was representative of many detainees at Guantanamo Bay who had low-level roles in terrorism, in contrast to the alleged masterminds and important operatives in al-Qaeda and other groups.

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said he was not surprised by the lenient sentence because the case against Hamdan was not particularly strong. "It demonstrates, at the very least, that you cannot count on a military jury to throw the book at people," said Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School. "It doesn't demonstrate the wisdom of the process, and it doesn't illustrate the fairness of the process."

Pentagon officials are pressing forward with other cases they hope will be more indicative of the hard-core terrorism they seek to prosecute, including the cases against Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged co-conspirators in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Those cases, which could carry the death penalty, are expected to delve deep into the planning of terrorism that killed nearly 3,000 people in the United States.

The Pentagon also is pursuing cases in coming months against two detainees who allegedly killed and injured U.S. troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Omar Khadr, who was arrested when he was 15 years old after he allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade, is expected to face trial at Guantanamo Bay in October.

Gary Myers, who has practiced military law for 40 years, said military panels have a deep understanding of command structure and are loath to punish low-level players when someone higher up is responsible.

"They understand chain of command and the relative roles of people, and this guy was a nobody," Myers said. "It is really a question of how a military panel would view a four-star general's driver. He was a driver. This is a decision consistent with their military training and understanding."

Defense Department officials said there are concerns about the public perception of holding Hamdan after his prison term runs out, because it could label the military commissions a "show process" with no meaning to its sentences. They also worry about possible precedents that could be set in U.S. courts if Hamdan's attorneys immediately file a habeas corpus petition seeking his release in five months. Hamdan previously won a Supreme Court case that invalidated the Bush administration's earlier military commissions procedures.

Nancy Hollander, attorney for Saudi Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, said it would be "totally unfair" for the government to hold Hamdan indefinitely.

"We had a court. We had a jury. It was a military jury. They heard the evidence. They gave him five months," Hollander said. "That ought to be his sentence. Either we believe in American justice or we don't."

Complicating the case against Hamdan is the fact that he is from Yemen, a country where the United States has been reluctant to send Guantanamo detainees because of human rights and security concerns. Though Yemen has been lobbying to get its citizens into a repatriation program in Sanaa, the U.S. government has not agreed to do so. The only other person convicted under the military commissions system at Guantanamo -- Australian David Hicks -- was quickly sent to Australia to serve out the final months of his prison term before earning his release.

[back to contents]

UN Reports

No chance of fair trial, Karadzic says in first statement
The Guardian
By Ian Traynor
August 2, 2008

Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb warlord awaiting trial for genocide, says that high-ranking officials in the 1990s US administration of Bill Clinton want him dead and that it will be impossible for him to receive a fair trial after 12 years on the run ended with his arrest last week, it emerged yesterday.

"No one on earth believes in the possibility of an acquittal," Karadzic argued in a four-page statement which he was prevented from reading to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague on Thursday at a pre-trial hearing. "Others from President Clinton's team ... are in a hurry to see me dead."

Karadzic said that several months after the Bosnian war ended in November 1995, Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy who engineered the peace settlement at Dayton in Ohio, made the genocide suspect an offer.

"The offer was as follows: I must withdraw not only from public but also from party offices and completely disappear from the public arena."

Karadzic, who was head of the main Serbian party in Bosnia and president of the self-proclaimed Serbian republic in half of Bosnia, was indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity in 1995.

He retired from politics a year later and vanished until he was arrested on a bus in Belgrade in Serbia last week disguised as a long-haired alternative medicine aficionado.

"Holbrooke undertook on behalf of the USA that I would not be tried before this tribunal," Karadzic wrote in the first statement prepared for his defence against 11 counts of genocide and extermination of Bosnia's Muslims as well as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The statement was released yesterday by the tribunal in The Hague.

The allegations of a secret deal between Holbrooke and Karadzic have circulated in the Balkans for years and the American has repeatedly dismissed them contemptuously over the past week while stating that Karadzic is a mass murderer who deserves the death penalty.

"It's an invented story and no one ought to believe it," Holbrooke said.

"What I said was, 'If anyone deserves the death penalty, it's Karadzic and Mladic,'" Holbrooke said, referring to Karadzic's top military commander, Ratko Mladic, who is still a fugitive.

Karadzic added that Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, told Biljana Plavsic, Karadazic's successor as Bosnian Serb leader - who is serving an 11-year sentence for war crimes after plea-bargaining and confessing her guilt - that Karadzic should go away to "Russia, Greece or Serbia".

Karadzic claimed that the Hague tribunal defied US pressure to drop the case against himself, causing Holbrooke to "switch to Plan B - the liquidation of Radovan Karadzic".

Accused of being responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of mainly Muslims in Bosnia, Karadzic said he now feared for his own life.

"Mr Holbrooke's wish for my disappearance ... is today still fresher and stronger and the actions aimed at bringing this about are tireless."

Unlike previous high-profile Serbian war crimes suspects at the tribunal, Karadzic did not query the court's legitimacy and said he wanted to surrender in the 1990s but felt cheated by tribunal investigators.

He insisted to the court on Thursday that he would defend himself and eschew any legal team. But tribunal sources say that privately he is signalling otherwise and could decide to employ well-known lawyers.

German appointed as judge on UN war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia
UN News Service
August 5, 2008

Christoph Flügge has been appointed to serve on the United Nations war crimes tribunal dealing with the worst offences committed during the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s after the Security Council indicated its support for Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s intention to select the German jurist.

In an exchange of letters made public today, Ambassador Le Luong Minh of Viet Nam, which held the Council presidency last month, said he had consulted the 15-member panel and it had backed the appointment of Mr. Flügge to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Mr. Flügge, 61, will replace Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, also of Germany, who has resigned from the ICTY, effective 18 November.

The incoming judge has a lengthy professional history that includes a stint as a criminal judge in Berlin between 1983 and 1989. Most recently he has served as an expert in criminal matters for the Council of Europe and for the German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation, specializing in reform of the prison system in Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Estonia and Lithuania

Sierra Leone: Former Rebel Commanders Awaiting Judgment
Inter Press Service
By Lansana Fofana
August 7, 2008

Final arguments in the lengthy trial of three former commanders of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) have ended in Freetown, making way for judgment which is expected by the end of this year.

Jabati Mambu, a 25-year old who had his right hand chopped off at the wrist by rebel forces when they invaded Freetown in January 1999, is still bitter.

The two earlier trials of CDF and AFRC personnel resulted in sentences of between six and fifty years.

The court is expected to end its work in the first half of 2009.

Migiro stresses need to end impunity for war crimes and human rights abuses
UN News Service
August 10, 2008

Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro has called on lawyers to play a greater role in guaranteeing countries live up to their commitments to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

In an address yesterday to the American Bar Association in New York, Ms. Migiro said the fight to bring an end to impunity for such crimes is one of the most important ways of ensuring that the rule of law is put into practice worldwide.

She cited the formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a permanent institution aimed at trying those responsible for the worst crimes, and the 2005 pledge by world leaders at the UN on the “responsibility to protect” populations from such crimes as important milestones.

“Now, the need to make this responsibility to protect fully operational represents a major priority and challenge for the United Nations and for our Member States,” Ms. Migiro said.

The Deputy Secretary-General said the emergence of international criminal law and such institutions as the ICC raised the question of how to reconcile the need for peace in a country emerging from conflict with the duty of justice for the victims of that war.

“For the United Nations, justice and peace are complementary requirements. We strongly believe that there can be no lasting peace without justice. The question therefore is not whether justice should be pursued, but rather how best to interlink the two in the light of the specific circumstances, without sacrificing one for another.

“The United Nations has a clear position that it cannot support any amnesty for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and gross human rights abuses. I hope that you, as legal professionals, will work wherever possible to ensure that justice is not sidelined in the short-term interests of an unsustainable peace.”

Former Khmer Rouge Prison Chief Indicted on War Crimes
VOA News
August 12, 2008

A U.N.-backed genocide tribunal has added the charge of war crimes to its indictments against former Khmer Rouge prison chief Kaing Guek Eav.

The tribunal issued a statement Tuesday after completing an investigation of Kaing Guek Eav, who is commonly known as Duch.

Duch is one of five former Khmer Rouge leaders facing prosecution for their role in the regime's reign of terror from 1975 to 1979.

He is expected to be the first former Khmer Rouge leader to face trial in September. Last year, Duch was also charged with crimes against humanity.

During the Khmer Rouge's reign, Duch was the commander of the its notorious S-21 torture center.

About 1.7 million people died of murder, overwork, and starvation under the Khmer Rouge.
At S-21, about 16,000 people were tortured and interrogated for being suspected enemies of the ultra-communist regime. Most were bludgeoned to death in a field on the outskirts of the capital. Less than 10 prisoners survived.

[back to contents]

NGO Reports

Standing Firm against Impunity
Human Rights Watch
By Sara Darehshori
August 1, 2008

Many people in Bosnia and beyond thought they would never see Radovan Karadzic standing before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). It seemed almost beyond the dreams of the rape victims that I interviewed in Bosnia in 1993, or those held in concentration camps. But even then, in the midst of the conflict and in very difficult circumstances, local civilians had painstakingly gathered detailed testimonies from survivors in the hope that one day, there would be justice for these crimes.

Even after the Yugoslav tribunal was established and had issued indictments against Karadzic for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, it seemed unlikely that he would ever be arrested. And yet this week he faced a panel of judges for his role in the massacre of men and boys after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, as well ascrimes in various cities across Bosnia, including the shelling of Sarajevo during the city’s siege.Why did it finally happen? A crucial factor wasthe European Union’s (EU) insistence that Serbia fully cooperate with the tribunal as a precondition for a Stabilization and Association Agreement, the first step towards EU membership. The EU correctly took a principled approach towards justice for the victims in the Balkans, insisting that Serbia surrender key fugitives, including Karadzic and his military henchman, General Ratko Mladic,before it could establish closer ties with the EU. This sent the message to Serbia, and to the rest of the world, that justice for the most serious crimes, including genocide, remains at the core of Europe’s values.

The timing of Karadzic’s arrest provides an important lesson for world leaders wondering about their approach to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC)possible arrest warrant against Sudan’s president. The court’s prosecutor wants the court to issue a warrant for Omar al-Bashir on charges of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity for orchestrating the abusive counterinsurgency campaign in Darfur.

Many are arguing—as they did when Karadzic was indicted—that now is not the right time for justice. A warrant against Bashir, they say could stand in the way of peace.

The nay-sayers had nowhere to turn over the Karadzic indictment. But those concerned by the Bashir case have a place to focus their complaints. The United Nations Security Council has the authority to interfere with the ICC’s independent judicial processes. The Rome Statute creating the court contains a provision allowing the Security Council to suspend the ICC’s investigations or prosecutions for 12 months if it views suspension of the court’s work as necessary to maintain or restore peace and security.

Already the African Union and the Organization of Islamic Conference have urged the Security Council to use this measure. The question of deferral generated heated debate in Security Council negotiations this week over the renewal of the United Nations/African Union hybrid force in Darfur. One of the reasons offered for a deferral is fear of retaliation against peacekeepers and humanitarian workers.

Yet Karadzic’s arrest shows theimportance of consistent diplomatic pressure and how it can ultimately lead to justice for victims of serious crimes. The dire consequences predicted as a result of Karadzic’s indictment never materialized; in fact the indictment diminished his power and took him out of the political game.

In the case of Sudan, the Security Council already determined that the impunity for ongoing crimes in Darfur was itself a threat to peace and security when it referred the situation to the ICC. Nothing has happened to change that assessment: ttacks by government forces and aligned janjaweed continue. Moreover, the Darfur peace talks have been stalled for nine months for reasons unrelated to the ICC or to the possibility of a warrant against Bashir. No one has been held to account in Sudan’s national courts in relation to the attacks in Darfur. Thus, it is unclear what can be gained by deferring international judicial processes now.

On the other hand, the cost to justice to the ICC of such a deferral would be high. It will set a dangerous precedent for accused in other situations: that threatening violence and retaliation may enable them to blackmail the Security Council into issuing a deferral. While the risk to peacekeepers and humanitarians should not be taken lightly, the threat of retaliation should be met with a strong response by the Security Council. Rather than cave into demands, they should insist that perpetrators of such attacks, which constitute war crimes, be held to account. To do otherwise is to allow the Security Council to be held hostage to threats of violence.
Now is not the time for the international community to back away from commitments to bringing justice to victims of horrific crimes. European Union members, including Spain, must maintain their resolve to ensure that the Yugoslav tribunal’s remaining fugitives, including the notorious Serb general Ratko Mladic, are captured as a precondition to Serbia’s possible EU membership. European countries should similarly remain firm in their commitment to ending impunity in Darfur and to international justice by resisting a deferral of the ICC’s case against Bashir.

The Bizarre Trial of Bin Laden's Bodyguard
Human Rights Watch
By Julia Hall
August 1, 2008

Given all the information about abusive interrogations that has made its way out of Guantánamo, the "surprises" over the past week in Salim Hamdan's war-crimes trial – the first military commission convened by the U.S. government since Nuremberg – weren't exactly earth-shattering. But that didn't stop the defense, dubbed Team Hamdan, from doing what it could here to surprise the six-member jury of military officers (plus one sub) tasked with determining Hamdan's guilt or innocence.
The defense team of four lawyers asked the jury members if they knew that Hamdan, who worked as Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard, was prodded out of his Guantánamo prison bed in the middle of the night and interrogated by a U.S. agency that could not be named. They asked if the jury was surprised to learn that Hamdan's boss, Abdullah Tabarak, in charge of bin Laden's security detail, including bodyguards and drivers, had himself been detained at Guantánamo Bay but was released and sent home to Morocco in 2004. And they shared with the jury video footage of Hamdan taken soon after he was captured, showing him shackled, hooded and scared, as he was badgered by a U.S. military interrogator and in obvious pain from sitting too long trussed about the legs.

Yet, through it all, it seemed that Team Hamdan could barely solicit a raised eyebrow among the jury members. Maybe such revelations would have shocked a military jury in the past. But the trampling of rights at Guantánamo Bay has so permeated the national consciousness (if not its conscience) that such abuse seems almost commonplace – a simple byproduct of the war on terror that must be endured.

As FBI agent George Crouch, a prosecution witness, said dryly – after learning that apparent CIA interrogations of Hamdan had taken place at night without the knowledge of FBI agents who were questioning Hamdan during the day – "Nothing surprises me these days."

The late delivery of documents

The first hiccup in the trial occurred when the prosecution failed to deliver information the defense had requested weeks ago from the government about Hamdan's "participation" in Operation Sandman, allegedly a program to maintain discipline at Guantánamo but that was suspected to include "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as sleep deprivation. Judge Keith Allred, a Navy captain, had ordered the prosecution to provide the documents to the defense, but they trickled in at a snail's pace, some being released to Team Hamdan only the night before the trial began.

It was perhaps not surprising then that Team Hamdan's leader, Charlie Swift, a former lieutenant commander in the Navy, opened with a sarcasm-soaked contemplation of what he would have done if he'd gotten those 600 pages sooner, by way of requesting more time to analyze the documents. Swift pointed out, for example, "I would have interviewed the guards on Tango Block to determine the exact level of [Hamdan's] sleep deprivation."

The prosecution protested Team Hamdan's request for additional time, but Judge Allred granted it and showed his annoyance with the prosecution by issuing a stern reprimand to the government prosecutors. "The government is in a poor position to get indignant about anything," Allred said. "Good grief, Charlie Brown, what have you been doing?"

Say what?

Allred's irritation at the prosecution was short-lived, however, and was soon turned on the defense, which objected repeatedly to the admission of statements that constituted hearsay.

The rule against hearsay – which excludes as evidence statements not made by the person testifying – is a cornerstone of American criminal justice. If the accused can't directly confront the person who uttered the words in order to probe for and confirm the truth of the statement, then those words can't be used as evidence. While there are many exceptions to the basic hearsay rule, hearsay evidence generally remains prohibited.

Not so with the Guantánamo military commissions. The Military Commissions Act, passed by Congress in 2006, expressly permits hearsay evidence, provided it is "reliable" and "probative" – a standard that renders the hearsay rule meaningless. Allred told counsel outright at the beginning of Hamdan's trial that he will accept any recognized exception to the hearsay rule and any hearsay evidence offered under the "less rigorous standard Congress has provided."

The prosecution therefore felt free to ask one witness, "Did somebody at that time tell you something of significance about the accused?" Posed in such a way, this question is the very definition of impermissible hearsay.

But Team Hamdan became so tired of objecting, to no avail, that they didn't even bother to stand for that one.

The "capture videos"

Watching the two Hamdan "capture videos" was harrowing both for what they depict and for the fact that they were admitted into evidence at all. The videos document Hamdan's interrogations by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan right after he was taken into custody. It's difficult to know what the prosecution intended to show with these tapes, except maybe that the U.S. military had confidence in the integrity of the post-capture interrogations.

In the grainy black and white film, the videos show Hamdan slumped on the floor, hooded and shackled, as he is badgered by his Arabic-speaking military interrogator in a dark room with one dim light bulb overhead. An armed soldier is behind Hamdan, the interrogator in front.

After removing the hood, the interrogator begins the questioning, only to be interrupted several times by Hamdan, who asks if he can change positions, move his legs and rub his foot. There is a sickening sense in watching that Hamdan – visibly scared – is searching for the right words to appease the interrogator, trying out ideas as they occur to him in an attempt to avoid more abuse.

The defense strenuously objected to the admission of these tapes as evidence. According to military commissions' rules, evidence obtained through torture can't be admitted. But the U.S. government has defined torture so narrowly that it seems almost anything can be admitted into evidence as a product of "mere" coercion.

Although Allred acknowledged in a ruling issued the day before trial that Hamdan was subjected to "various types of coercive treatment," he overruled the objection to the tapes, saying that the rules allow the admission of coerced testimony if it is deemed "reliable" and "the interests of justice." Those tapes, he concluded, served the interest of justice and were allowed in. Never mind the coercion.

Defenders of the military commission process will point to other statements that Allred has excluded from trial, because they were coerced, to argue that the process is fair. But with some evidence admitted that was clearly obtained through coercion, those claims ring hollow.

Although the videos were entered into the record, aired in court, and viewed by those in the gallery, the Department of Defense will not release them to the general public. According to one Pentagon source, the DoD is withholding them out of an "abundance of caution." Perhaps the DoD fears that the American public will know a coercive interrogation when it sees one?

Good cop, bad cop

On day four of the trial, the prosecution called on FBI special agent Dan William. He testified that on Aug. 19, 2002, he interviewed Hamdan at Camp Delta, one of the prisons at Guantánamo Bay. William said that Hamdan was "willing" to talk and the session was "cordial." He noted that he did not read Hamdan his rights, as it was "policy" at the time not to do so for any Guantánamo detainee.

On cross-examination the next day, Team Hamdan offered a secret document into evidence, and while court observers were not able to see the document, we were told it revealed that Hamdan had been rudely awakened at midnight on Aug. 19-20, 2002, and interrogated by "another agency" of the U.S. government – typically a euphemism for the CIA.

Upon hearing this information, William shrugged. Although he had no idea that anyone else had questioned Hamdan at the same time as he did, he told the defense that he didn't think secret midnight interrogations undermined his own daytime "rapport building" efforts.

One of Hamdan's lawyers suggested that there might be some kind of "good guy, bad guy thing going on," with FBI agents "building rapport" during the day and "the other agency" doing things the rough way at night.

Those in the gallery will never know the answer to that. Under an order from the judge, the CIA's name can't be uttered aloud in Hamdan's trial and the secret document is, well, secret.

Dark night

There are other surreal aspects to what happens at Guantánamo Bay. As the first week of proceedings for Hamdan came to an end, trial observers went to see "The Dark Knight" at the military base's outdoor cinema.

The evening was all-American: families with lawn chairs and coolers with beer; public service announcements encouraging the crowd to honor American democracy by mailing in their absentee ballots; the playing of the national anthem; and then the movie.

Needless to say, it was weird to see "The Dark Knight" here. The movie is not a simple "good guys vs. bad guys" tale, but a rumination on the nature of good and evil, every person's capacity for corruption and redemption, and the triumph of basic humanity over self-interest. But the Guantánamo Bay detention facility is itself marred by the rendition, torture and ill-treatment of many of its occupants, and the deeply flawed trials that have commenced here. It is precisely these types of indecencies, committed by those with unrestrained power, that "The Dark Knight" disavows.

Allred was also in attendance at the movie, so I introduced myself to him as an observer for Human Rights Watch. The judge, who clearly takes his responsibilities seriously and is mindful of the historical moment at hand, seemed pleased.

"It's very important that you're here," he said to me.

Yes, that's true, I thought to myself – better to be here than to let the trial go on without anybody from civil society witnessing it.

But I was not glad that either of us was there. A much better place to be would have been on the U.S. mainland, in a federal court, observing a trial that at its essence would be fair, impartial and just. What is unfolding at Guantánamo Bay is something very far from that.

[back to contents]