First Arrest Warrants Issued by the ICC Regarding Darfur
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its first ever arrest warrants against officials allegedly involved in crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. The arrest warrants were issued for humanitarian affairs minister, Ahmen Haround, and Janjaweed militia leader, Ali Muhammad Ali Abd al-Rahman (a/k/a Ali Kushayb). As the former minister of the interior, the ICC claims that Mr. Haroun was responsible for organizing and funding the Janjaweed paramilitary force, the principle actors in the atrocities in Darfur. The ICC alleges Mr. Kushayb ordered the mass murder, torture, and rape of civilians. Haroun faces several charges, including 13 murder charges, 4 charges of rape, and one count of torture, among others. Included in his arrest warrant, Kushayb faces at least 11 counts of murder, two counts of rape, and one count of torture. Haroun claims innocence and has stated the charges are politically motivated. Kushayb is currently in the custody of the Sudanese government.
Sudanese officials have stated they will not turn over the suspects to the ICC because it does not recognize its authority. According to the principle of complimentarity, the ICC may only compliment a national court system and does not replace that system if one is open and functioning. Sudan has said it is capable of trying suspects of accused atrocities and does not need assistance from the ICC. The referral of the Sudanese case, however, was made under mandate by the United Nations Security Council in 2005, which would theoretically obligate Sudan to comply or face material breach. The prosecutor for the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, stated that “[t]he judges have issued arrest warrants. As the territorial state, the government of Sudan has a legal duty to arrest Ahmed Haroun and Ali Kushayb. This is the International Criminal Court’s decision, and the government has to respect it.” Human Rights Watch officials have said in comments to Agence France-Presse that the arrest warrants “shifts the burden to Sudan” to honor the UN Security Council resolution.
US President Bush has recently declared the atrocities in Darfur are genocide. And, according to the report, the Sudanese government is smuggling weapons into Darfur by disguising official planes as UN vehicles and is using government planes to conduct bombing raids.
ICC arrest warrant: Ahmed Haround, Ali Kushayb
FPA blogger, Cassandra Clifford, has background here.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
[…] It’s a precedent, to be sure: the ICC has issued its first arrest warrants for Sudanese officials who are implicated in the Darfur atrocity. But is the precedent good or bad? Who may legally execute the warrant? What of the other thousands of people who have participated in the wanton slaughter? What of national sovereignty, so inconvenient here but so zealously guarded by the West? […]
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
[…] It’s a precedent, to be sure: the ICC has issued its first arrest warrants for Sudanese officials who are implicated in the Darfur atrocity. But is the precedent good or bad? Who may legally execute the warrant? What of the other thousands of people who have participated in the wanton slaughter? What of national sovereignty, so inconvenient here but so zealously guarded by the West? […]
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
It is good to see that ICC has produced an arrest warrant to a man alleged to have committed war criminals. if he is innocent he will be but if he is guilty then he should get what he deserves. However, i am afraid he will be like other serbian war criminals and will not be handed over to criminal court. Also, the genocide in Darfur is not the only one what about the somali warlords who were terrorising their people for the last 17 years in the case of the somali president 35 years (he is a former warlord and boasts that he was the first one who started the killing in somalia). Also, the Ethiopian army who are occupying somalia, indiscrimately shelling residential areas, raping women, looting and arming the warlords to continue their campaign of terror against the innocent somali civilians.
Furthermore, who will take to court the US adminstration as they are occupying Iraq (By the way there will not be a vaccuum if america leaves Iraq…the UN can take over and the mission can be led by Indonesean or pakistani peace keepers) and they are funding/training the somali warlords, Ethiopian occupation in somalia.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 am
Great to see the comments!
On your points;
I will re-state that the ICC holds no jurisdiction not specifically granted to that system. However, with UNSCR resolutions in play here, it seems this may be a unique case. I don’t see sanctions working in Sudan and I don’t see much in the way of force being use either. Should be interesting.
The US does not recognize the authority of the ICC and has also been more than willing to try its violators in its own courts martials, as in the case of Haditha. If a state has an adequate system, the principles of complimentarity hold there is no need for prosecution before the World Court - unless by chance the next President hands them over, which I don’t see happening.
Also, there are diplomatic immunity laws that prevent prosecution of sitting officials.
The UN does not have any better track record at peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction than any other individual nation. The UN has no authority not granted by the member states. If the member states want something to happen, they will contribute the resources to do so.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Dear Mr. Somali, Even though the Serbian war criminals did not go to the ICC, they did go to Tribunal. In your opinion, why would it have been better to go to the ICC?
I thought that the use of local tribunal was a little more regionally-sensitive, but I would like your take on that, and how that would or would not work for Somalia and Sudan.
I’ll check back and see if Daniel or Mr. Somali or anyone responds . . .
Bonnie
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Well, the hyrbird system - if that’s what you’re discussing Bonnie - is not without its own issues. If we look to the Khmer Rouge system, it is seen as a bit corrupt and somewhat contentious. The international community is seeking to right a foreign system and that system is trying to retain its identity, lest it become a ward of the international community.
I would say that there is no right answer. If we hope for an international panacea, then we rely on some degree of release of autonomy normally granted to a sovereign nation. If we look to a domestic system, we can see how it would smack of victors justice (if the former regime has been deposed) or lack legitimacy (if sympathetic powers remain in tact.)
It would appear to me that inevitably, we look to the evolution of morality as it proceeds in the body of international law. In international law, it is widely held that the ‘evil looks of anxiety’ and the ‘liberalism of fear’ hold morality in check. By common and customary usage, at least in theory, the benchmark of normative behavior will evolve to reflect a civlized society.