Resources
Monday, June 27, 2022
  • Login
Journalists for Justice
No Result
View All Result

Browse by Topic:

  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers
No Result
View All Result
Journalists for Justice
  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers
No Result
View All Result
Journalists for Justice
No Result
View All Result
Home ICC Cases Africa Cases

Victims’ attempt to ‘save’ Afghan investigation leads to conundrum

Journalists for JusticebyJournalists for Justice
July 4, 2019
in Africa Cases, ICC Cases
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
1
Race to succeed Bensouda begins as clock ticks to her exit
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

By Thomas Verfuss in The Hague

The decision of a pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) not to authorize the prosecutor to pursue a formal investigation in Afghanistan into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by combatants including those from the United States and its allies has raised many eyebrows since it was published in April.

The finding has been questioned because of the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed by the Taliban rebels, by the government of the Central-Asian country, and by American and British troops and their intelligence services, both in Afghanistan and in black sites in Eastern Europe where “terror suspects” were held.

The decision has also brought to the fore the reason why the court was set up: What is the ICC there for in the first place if judges won’t even allow the prosecutor to try and investigate and prosecute if states are unwilling to do so?

Finally, the decision left those who disagree with the court on the remedies available to them when they are at variance with the court.

RelatedStories

Gicheru witness tampering trial starts before the ICC

Trial Chamber VI to hear Said Abdel Kani case

Court turns down bid to introduce elusive witness’s testimony, but allows four other statements

The ruling by the pre-trial chamber follows a 2017 formal request by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda who had outlined possible crimes committed since 2003 by the United States armed forces, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Afghan National Security Forces, the Taliban and the militant Haqqani network.

The fathers and mothers of the Rome Statute system thought of situations where judges might refuse to authorize the opening of an investigation because of lack of jurisdiction or admissibility. Such a decision can be appealed, the texts are clear.

But in this case the pre-trial judges said they were satisfied the requirements of jurisdiction and admissibility were met. They said they still did not authorize the investigation “in the interests of justice”. This argument has never been used before. As the victims have been clamoring for an investigation in large numbers, many fail to understand why granting them the satisfaction of at least seeing the Prosecutor try to obtain justice would be contrary to the interests of justice.

But there is also the procedural headache on the denial “in the interests of justice”: as such a course of events had not been foreseen by the drafters of the basic texts of the system; victims argue that such a test is beyond the powers of the pre-trial chamber judges in this situation. It is not clear by which mechanism the decision might be appealed. This question has led to lots of debate among ICC experts since April: academics argue about which article of the Rome Statute should be used.

The matter has generated five key filings between June 7 and June 12: First, the prosecutor asked for leave to appeal the decision not to grant the authorization to open an investigation. That is not the appeal itself – just a request to the pre-trial chamber judges for permission to put the matter before the Appeals Chamber judges.

Then, in three different filings, various legal representatives of different groups of victims made submissions to both the pre-trial chamber and the appeals chamber, either seeking leave to appeal or starting to make submissions on the appeal itself, a so-called notice of appeal.

On top of that, on June 12, the Prosecutor made “observations” to both pre-trial chamber and Appeals Chamber on the victims’ submissions. She expressed understanding for the victims’ concerns. But as a matter of procedure, Bensouda submits that the victims have no right to appeal, because they are not a fully-fledged party to the proceedings, but just a “participant” – an old debate in ICC quarters, where for the first time in the history of contemporaneous international criminal courts and tribunals, victims are not only “used” to obtain a conviction, but have a right to their own voice, a right to be legally represented by counsel to put forward their concerns before the judges. But that does not mean victims have the same “standing” to make requests and filings as parties like prosecutor and defense.

Confronted with the confusing picture of the recent filings, with not only requests for leave to appeal and notices of appeal, but also an NGO offer to help the court with advice as “amicus curiae” (friend of the court) and submissions on behalf of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV), an auxiliary organ loosely attached to the Registry, the Prosecutor notes: “The diverging approaches and requests of the Five NGOs, the interveners, and the OPCV have created an anomalous situation in the procedure of the Court, by ostensibly triggering concurrent—and potentially incompatible—proceedings on a matter which is already sub judice.”

Bensouda asks the judges not to formally recognize the victims as parties to the proceedings, but listen to what they have to say on the merits – and decide on her own appeal “expeditiously”.

Legal representatives of the victims Fergal Gaynor (Ireland) and Nada Kiswanson van Hooydonk (Palestine) recall in their submission whom they represent: “A total of 699 representation forms were transmitted to Pre-Trial Chamber III on behalf of 6,220 individuals, 1,690 families, several millions of victims including 26 villages and one institution.” Gaynor and Kiswanson explicitly support the Prosecutor’s request for leave to appeal.

The victims’ representatives point out the ambiguity of the Rome Statute system as to who is a party to the proceedings at this stage and ask for a generous interpretation: “The Statute does not define ‘party’. Nor do the Elements of Crimes, the Rules, or the Regulations. The Victims submit that the term should, in the present exceptional circumstances, where an entire investigation has been denied notwithstanding affirmative findings on jurisdiction and admissibility, be interpreted to include victims.”

The victims representatives recall that states like Jordan and Côte d’Ivoire have been allowed to file appeals, though they are not explicitly recognized as parties, like prosecution and defense: “Just as States have interests which should be respected in exceptional circumstances by providing an avenue to appeal under Article 82(1), even when that provision does not expressly so provide, victims should also be permitted to appeal a decision that goes to the core of their interests. That is the case here. The Decision pertains directly to jurisdiction and resulted in the denial of authorisation of an entire investigation that negatively affects the prospect of justice for millions of victims.”

“In addition, at issue are the Victims’ rights to truth, justice, and to reparation. The decision represents a concrete, actual threat to the Victims’ interests: without active investigation by the Prosecution, there can be no trials at the Court and those responsible for the crimes will be not be held accountable.”

Previous Post

LRA boss Joseph Kony ordered Ongwen’s death, witness tells ICC

Next Post

Ongwen was at the sick bay during the Pajule attack, witness tells ICC judges

Journalists for Justice

Journalists for Justice

Related Posts

Kenyan lawyer Paul Gicheru at the opening of his trial at the International Criminal Court on February 15, 2022. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI

Gicheru witness tampering trial starts before the ICC

February 16, 2022
Mr Said during the opening of the confirmation of charges hearing at the seat of the Court in The Hague (The Netherlands) on 12 October 2021 ©ICC-CPI

Trial Chamber VI to hear Said Abdel Kani case

December 20, 2021
Paul Gicheru appearing before the ICC via video-link from the ICC Detention Centre on 6 November 2020. Photo credit: ICC-CPI

Court turns down bid to introduce elusive witness’s testimony, but allows four other statements

December 17, 2021
Special Criminal Court Arrests CAR Minister Bouba for War Crimes. Photo: News Central TV

Pressure mounts for CAR minister to face justice

December 2, 2021
ICC Trial Chamber VIII declares Mr Al Mahdi guilty of the war crime of attacking historic and religious buildings in Timbuktu and sentences him to nine years' imprisonment. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI

Al Mahdi to be released early after ICC cuts sentence by two years

December 1, 2021
Dominic Ongwen's appeal hearing coming up in February 2022. Photo credit: @ICC-CPI.

Ongwen’s appeal hearing to start in February 2022

November 26, 2021
Next Post

Ongwen was at the sick bay during the Pajule attack, witness tells ICC judges

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please login to comment
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback
JFJ - Journalists for Justice
2 years ago

[…] PTC judges held that the chances of success in the Afghanistan investigation would be scarce because the United States of America would not […]

0
No Result
View All Result

Recent Posts

  • From Kyiv to Kabul and Darfur: Challenges of reporting justice and human rights
  • Gicheru to attend court session remotely
  • After euphoria of state white paper, victims now demand action on Jammeh
  • Right the Wrongs: Spotlight on the 2020 General Election in Tanzania
  • Selective approach to TRRC recommendations a sure recipe for defeating justice

Recent Comments

  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Kenyan lawyer denies bribery charges at the ICC
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on You did me wrong, Bemba tells ICC as he demands 70 million euros
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Two victims’ lawyers in Kenyatta case in line to become next ICC prosecutor
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Profiles of the four people shortlisted for the job of ICC Prosecutor
  • Write My Essay on Afghanistan case fails to take off at the ICC — pragmatism’ or surrender to the powerful?

Archives

Categories

JFJ – Journalists for Justice

We call out impunity wherever it occurs; we advocate justice for all victims of atrocity crimes; and we work with people of goodwill everywhere who share our values.

Browse by Topics:

Archives by Month:

Never Again
INTAHE
BarometreVerite
The Victims' Bantaba
No Result
View All Result
  • Confronting Impunity
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Login

Copyright © 2019. Journalists for Justice has asserted its right to be recognized as creators and owners of the content here. Reproduction in part or in whole is permitted on condition that JFJ is acknowledged and notified.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz