VOICES ON GENOCIDE PREVENTION

Cherry Sour?

The one cloud on Khartoum's horizon, and it may be a haboob, is the investigation by the International Criminal Court. Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo informed the UN Security Council last week that he was planning to present evidence to the court by February. I talked to him on Monday and we will be posting the interview this Thursday. He obviously could not go into too much detail, but he made it sound as though he has been able to gather evidence of "the system" responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur in 2003-2004. I took this to mean that the individuals he will go after -- i.e., those most responsible for serious crimes -- will not be low level functionaries. He also will continue investigating crimes committed since 2004 and believes that he has jurisdiction as well over crimes committed on the territory of Chad and the Central African Republic, both of which are parties to the ICC statute. (Chad is actually the newest party, with its membership becoming effective on January 1.)

posted by Jerry Fowler Dec 18, 2006 - 09:47 PM | (2) Comments | Tell-a-Friend

Comments

It is my understanding that the ICC can only exercise its jurisdiction for crimes committed after a state has become a party to the court.

If Chad is not a party until January 1st, doesn’t that mean Moreno-Ocampo can’t investigate any of the crimes that were committed before that date?

The only other way the ICC could investigate pre-Jan. 1st crimes would be if Chad had made a declaration accepting the Court’s jurisdiction. As far as I know, that hasn’t happened.

Am I mistaken in my understanding of this?

posted by Eugene on 12 19 at 05:48 AM

Comments

Eugene—you’re right that jurisdiction based on Chad’s membership in the court would only date from when the statute comes into effect for Chad—i.e., January 1—absent a declaration of acceptance by Chad. As you will hear/read in the interview, Chief Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo believes he already has jurisdiction, apparently based on the referral to the ICC of “the situation in Darfur” by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1593. We didn’t go into detail, but I imagine his argument would be that “situation” is the operative term (and is the term used in the ICC statute). The reference to Darfur is a general descriptor of the “situation” and not a strict limitation of the court’s jurisdiction (keeping in mind that a UN Security Council action can authorize ICC jurisdiction without territorial limitations). To the extent that crimes committed in Chad are related to the overall situation in Darfur, the court would have jurisdiction before January 1, 2007. It may not be a slam dunk argument, but it’s certainly not frivolous either. Chad could of course make the situation crystal clear through a declaration of acceptance, which probably appeals to the Deby government for the same reason that membership in the court does: his adversaries would be in a worse position.—JF

posted by on 12 19 at 10:17 AM

Page 1 of 1 pages

Add a comment:

VOICES ON GENOCIDE PREVENTION - AN INTERNET TALK SHOW FROM THE UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

Stay up-to-date on the crisis in Darfur as well as the continuing challenge of preventing and responding to genocide and related crimes against humanity around the world. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum presents a weekly interview program, hosted by Bridget Conley-Zilkic, that brings you the voices you don't always hear in mainstream media -- from human rights defenders to experts to advocates to government officials. Vital voices addressing one of humanity's most vital issues.

Subscribe and listen to the show as a weekly podcast, or listen to individual programs online, and post your comments about the interviews on the blog.

WEB LINKS

RELATED BLOGS