Impunity Watch: Special Features

Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights

The launch of the Atrocity Crimes Litigation Year-in-Review Issue is coupled with the 2008 launch of an annual conference at Northwestern University School of Law bearing the same name.  Also in an effort to better understand in real-time the rapid developments in atrocity crimes law, the first annual Atrocity Crimes Litigation Year-in-Review Conference was presented in January 2008 by the Journal and Northwestern’s Center for International Human Rights led by David Scheffer .

The inspiration for the launch of the Year-in-Review Conference and annual issue is the pace and vigor with which atrocity crimes law is evolving.  The significant decisions and judgments produced by the international and hybrid criminal tribunals in recent years have been so voluminous and impressive that we believe they merit an annual scholarly review.  Indeed, it has become quite difficult for any scholar or practitioner of the tribunals, much less the general public, to keep track of the developments—both substantive and procedural—that emerge from the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the permanent International Criminal Court—to name only the most prominent of the international and hybrid tribunals.  The Year-in-Review Issue thus seeks to provide elaboration and critique of the most significant developments of the previous year by scholars and experts in the field from across the globe.

Please check the Journal website or the Center for International Human Rights website later this year for information regarding the 2009 Year-in-Review Conference. 

Readers can read the Journal of International Human Right's Year in Review here.  This information has been published here with the permission of Professor David Scheffer.  Professor Scheffer is a Mayer Brown/Robert A. Helman Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of the Center for International Human Rights.

Congressmen Write Prime Minister Sundaravej Concerning Viktor Bout's Extradition

The letter to Thailand's Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej from 35 Congressmen can be found here.

MAGGEMM Responds to Impunity Watch

Yesterday MAGGEMM responded to our report which called for the prosecution of Robert Mugabe. 
Their response can be found here.

!ENOUGH: Seeking Justice for Zimbabwe

SEEKING JUSTICE FOR ZIMBABWE: A Case for Accountability Against Robert Mugabe and Others

By David M. Crane, Sir Desmond De Silva, QC, and Professor Tom Zwart

With the assistance of Anton Altman, Brianna McGonicle, Gentian Zyberi and others

Justice Across Borders

This article was originally published by The International Herald Tribune and is republished here with the permission of its author David M. Crane.

Richard Goldstone ("Prosecuting Sudan's leader," Views, July 16) is right to question the short-sighted argument that the International Criminal Court's indictment of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan would jeopardize a peace agreement. In many instances, the ICC's action has actually strengthened the prospects for a sustainable and just peace. Uganda suffered civil war for most of two decades, and it was only after the court started its investigations that real peace talks  commenced.

The International Criminal Court can only act when a state is unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute crimes within its jurisdiction. The impetus and responsibility for dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide continues to lie primarily at the national level, and the international court acts as a catalyst, a guardian, and a last resort for victims to obtain justice.

This is one of the court's strengths because it allows the court to act as a driving force for national efforts to overcome impunity.

A durable peace can only be achieved by providing accountability and redress for victims of war crimes. Whatever mechanisms are adopted to provide accountability and redress - international or local prosecutions or truth and reconciliation commissions - they must be designed in a way that will promote restoration of the rule of law.

Failing to account for past wrongs weakens the rule of law. It allows impunity to prevail and a vicious cycle of violence to continue. Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin: There cannot be one without the other.

The ICC has been operating for five years. It will need more time to affirm itself as a significant instrument for justice. Instead of criticizing it for its current shortcomings, we must work to improve its operations and its efficiency. The U.S. and other powerful countries have not ratified the court's statute - I hope this will change after the U.S. elections - but this is no reason for critics to view the court as ineffective in countries where it does have jurisdiction.

Supporters of the effort to end impunity for crimes against humanity and genocide must continue to promote the universal ratification of the court's statute.

Emma Bonino, RomeVice president of the Italian Senate and a founder of No Peace Without Justice

I recall standing in front of the world's press on June 4, 2003, announcing that I had unsealed the indictment of former President Charles Taylor of Liberia for 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity as he walked up the steps for the opening ceremony of the Accra peace accords.

The international community reacted with praise - and condemnation. Many politicians voiced concern that I had put in jeopardy the newly organized peace process. Yet five years later, Liberia is stable, and a fairly elected government is in place with a real possibility that it is on the correct path to a sustainable peace. Taylor sits in The Hague on trial before a judicial chamber of the Special Court of Sierra Leone.

The recent actions by the International Criminal Court related to the indictment of President Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity has resulted in similar rhetoric from politicians.

But the indictment of these two African heads of state tells the people of Africa that their lives matter and that those members of the "club" of African dictators today are on notice that they are accountable for their actions. The action against Bashir tells the people of Africa that no one is above the law, that the law is fair, and that the rule of law is more powerful than the rule of the gun.

Yet, the current leadership in Africa does not get it. Their silence or mumbled condemnation of the actions by the ICC reflects their true attitude toward the law.

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is the next head of state who must be held accountable. His arrogant rule has brought great shame on himself, his country, and the south of Africa

These indictments are the building blocks by which the African continent can move forward. Accountability, good governance, and the rule of law will bring the stability needed for economic growth and long term investment.

David M. Crane, Syracuse, New York Professor, Syracuse University and founding chief prosecutor of the international war crimes tribunal in West Africa, called the Special Court for Sierra Leone

ICC's Statement of the Case in the Sudan

The International Criminal Court has released a statement of the case with regard to the ongoing situation in Darfur, the Sudan.  English and french versions of this document are available below. 

Prosecutor’s Application for Warrant of Arrest under Article 58 Against Omar Hassan Ahmad AL BASHIR

Requête du Procureur aux fins de délivrance d’un mandat d’arrêt en vertu de l’article 58 contre Omar Hassan Ahmad AL BASHIR

Chautauqua Declaration

On August 29, 2007 an unprecedented group of nine war crimes prosecutors gathered in Chautauqua, New York.  The prosecutors, including the last living prosecutors from the Nuremberg Trials, met to sound a clarion call to  end "impunity by perpetrators of crimes of concern to the international community." 

The result of the meeting was the First Chautauqua Declaration, which stands for the proposition that international justice is an issue of law, not choice.  It calls on members of the international community to live up to the promises of peace and justice which they have made. 

The above video was recorded on the day of the signing.

For more information, please see:
GlobalSolutions.org -- Chautauqua Declaration

The American Society for International Law -- International Criminal Tribunal Prosecutors Issue Joint Declaration