In early June the International Criminal Court appeals chamber acquitted Jean-Pierre Bemba in a 3-2 ruling. Two years ago Bemba was sentenced to 18 years’ for his role, as military commander, for atrocities committed in Central African Republic (CAR).
The decision astounded observers. The unexpected, narrowly decided acquittal, brought scads of criticism. This was because Bemba’s 2016 conviction was considered hugely significant. It assigned criminal responsibility to a senior military official physically removed from the violence. It also made sexual violence a centrepiece of the charges.
Sexual violence, a staple of war, has long been absent from international criminal law’s charge sheets. By assigning Bemba responsibility for the rapes committed by fighters under his command, the 2016 judgment was seen as an important doctrinal advance for international criminal law.
Bemba’s acquittal has wide implications. This is true both for Bemba as well as the ICC and international criminal law. Bemba, who will shortly be released, is rumoured to be returning to Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) to pursue political goals. There are reports that his party, the Movement for the Liberation of Congo, known as the MLC, has nominated him as its candidate for the presidential race.
THE PROSECUTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FATOU BENSOUDA, REQUESTS JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION TO COMMENCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SITUATION IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN.
The Situation in Afghanistan has been under preliminary examination by the Office of the Prosecutor since 2006. After a comprehensive and careful scrutiny of the information available to the Office, applying the applicable Rome Statute legal criteria, the Prosecutor has determined that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation of the Situation in Afghanistan.
As required by the Statute, the Prosecutor has, therefore, requested authorisation from Pre-Trial Chamber III, for an investigation into alleged crimes committed on the territory of Afghanistan in the period from 1 May 2003, as well as other alleged crimes linked to the armed conflict in Afghanistan and committed on the territory of other States Parties to the Statute, since 1 July 2002. The Court does not have jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the context of the Situation in Afghanistan before these cut-off dates.
As a result of its examination, the Office of the Prosecutor has determined that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the following categories of crimes within the Court's jurisdiction have occurred:
The Office has carefully assessed available information on any relevant, genuine national proceedings in relation to the conduct of these identified groups. In light of the gravity of the acts committed - the details of which are outlined in the Request - and the absence of relevant national proceedings against those who appear to be most responsible for the most serious crimes within this Situation, the Prosecutor considers that the potential cases that she has identified and that would arise from an investigation in this Situation, would be admissible pursuant to article 53(1)(b) of the Statute.
Furthermore, the Office has determined that there are no substantial reasons to believe that the opening of an investigation would not serve the interests of justice, taking into account the gravity of the crimes and the interests of victims.
Today, as per the applicable rules, the Prosecutor also notified victims or their legal representatives, of her intention to request authorisation to initiate an investigation in the Situation in Afghanistan informing them that they have until 31 January 2018 to submit representations to the Judges of Pre-Trial Chamber III on her Request.
If the Pre-Trial Chamber authorises the Prosecutor to begin an investigation, as mandated by the Rome Statute, the Office's sole objective will be to independently, impartially and objectively investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan.
Based on the evidence collected by the Office during the course of an investigation, if authorised, the Prosecutor can request ICC Judges to issue either summons to appear or arrest warrants, against those, as a rule, believed to be most responsible, no matter who the perpetrator, for alleged atrocity crimes committed in connection with the Situation in Afghanistan.
Published on the ICC on November 20, 2017.
Efforts to bring those responsible for atrocities in Syria before European courts are starting to bear fruit, notably in Swedish and German courts, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. While various authorities in Europe have opened investigations of serious international crimes committed in Syria, Sweden and Germany are the first two countries that have prosecuted and convicted people for these crimes.
The 66-page report, “‘These Are the Crimes We Are Fleeing’: Justice for Syria in Swedish and German Courts,” outlines efforts in Sweden and Germany to investigate and prosecute people implicated in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Syria. Drawing on interviews with 50 officials and practitioners working on these cases and 45 Syrian refugees in the two countries, Human Rights Watch documented the difficulties German and Swedish investigators and prosecutors face in taking up these types of cases, and the experience of refugees and asylum seekers with the authorities.
“With other avenues for justice currently blocked, criminal investigations in Europe are a beacon of hope for victims of crimes in Syria who have nowhere else to turn,” said Maria Elena Vignoli, Leonard H. Sandler fellow in the international justice program at Human Rights Watch. “As the first two countries to hold trials and convict people for atrocities in Syria, Sweden and Germany are putting war criminals on notice that they will have to pay for their crimes.”
Syrian refugees consistently stressed to Human Rights Watch the importance of bringing to justice those responsible for atrocities committed in Syria.“My brother was killed with 14 bullets by the regime,” said Samira, who lives in Sweden and lost several family members in the war. “All my family died. I saw five children being executed, I saw their heads being cut off. I couldn’t sleep for a week. […] It’s very important to have justice, which will let me feel that I’m human.”
Muhammad, an activist working on behalf of some Syrian victims in Germany, said of the Syrian government: “These people think that the political solution will come and they will be able to escape to Europe. I want them to feel haunted like they’ve haunted people all their life. We need to send a message of hope to victims and to send the message to criminals that they will not escape.”
On September 25, Sweden became the first country to convict a member of the Syrian army for crimes in Syria. The accused, identified through a photo in which he posed with his foot on the chest of a dead victim, was found guilty of violating the dignity of a dead body.
Both Sweden and Germany have elements in place to allow for the successful investigation and prosecution of grave crimes, including comprehensive laws, well-functioning specialized war crimes units, and previous experience with such cases. In addition, due to the large numbers of Syrian asylum seekers and refugees, previously unavailable victims, witnesses, material evidence, and even some suspects are now within the reach of the authorities in these countries.
Nonetheless, Human Rights Watch found that both Sweden and Germany are facing some difficulties.
“The standard challenges associated with pursuing these kinds of cases are compounded by an ongoing conflict in Syria, where there is no access to crime scenes,” Vignoli said. “Swedish and German authorities have to turn elsewhere for information, including from Syrian refugees, people doing similar work in other European countries, UN entities, and nongovernmental groups documenting atrocities in Syria.”
Human Rights Watch found that many Syrian asylum seekers and refugees are not aware of the systems in place to investigate and prosecute grave crimes in Syria, the possibility of their contributing to justice efforts in these countries, or the right of victims to participate in criminal proceedings.
Gathering relevant information from Syrian refugees and asylum seekers has also proved difficult due to their fear of possible retribution against loved ones back home, mistrust of police and government officials based on negative experiences in Syria, and feelings of abandonment by host countries and the international community.
Both Sweden and Germany have systems to protect victims and witnesses in criminal cases. Consistent with fair trial standards, both countries should explore options to increase protections in these cases for witnesses’ families in Syria, Human Rights Watch said.
Because of the difficulties involved, Human Rights Watch found only a small number of cases have been concluded, which do not represent the scale or nature of the abuses suffered by victims in Syria. Most cases have been against low-level members of non-state armed groups opposed to the Syrian government.
In Germany, the majority of cases are brought under terrorism charges rather than for grave international crimes. That could send the message that the authorities’ only focus is to combat domestic threats, Human Rights Watch said. Efforts to pursue terrorism charges should go hand in hand with efforts and resources to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
Authorities in both countries are working to address some of these issues, although more needs to be done, Human Rights Watch said. Sweden and Germany should ensure that their war crimes units are adequately resourced and staffed, provide them with ongoing training, and consider new ways to work with Syrian refugees and asylum seekers on their territory through outreach and public information efforts.
“European countries should follow Sweden and Germany’s lead and work to expand these justice efforts for Syrians in Europe,” Vignoli said. “Overall, these cases are not enough on their own and highlight the need for a more comprehensive justice process to address the ongoing impunity in Syria.”
Published on HRW on October 3, 2017.