ICC judges sack defence counsel in Darfur case
By Wasil Ali
March 16, 2007 (THE HAGUE) — The International Criminal Court (ICC) sacked the Libyan counsel of defence in Darfur case from his duties. The judges said he presented baseless requests and motions. Furthermore they described the filings made to challenge the jurisdiction of the ICC in Darfur as “frivolous and vexatious”.
The Libyan born counsel was appointed by the court on August 2006 to represent and protect the general interests of the defence in the Darfur case before the ICC.
The judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC who were assigned the Darfur case, invited the observations of Antonio Cassese the head of UN commission of inquiry on Darfur and by Louise Arbour the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the protection of victims and the preservation of evidence in Darfur.
The judges also asked the defence counsel to specifically address the issues raised by Cassese and Arbor in their observations. However, he ignored the observations and filed a long series of motions to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Darfur case at the ICC that were eventually rejected by the judges.
Shalluf sent a letter to the head of the Division of Victims and Counsel, who handles the issues relating to counsel fees, at the ICC requesting that payments be made to him on services rendered for the periods of 1st to 31st December 2006 and 1st to 31st January.
He was informed on February 13 that no payment would be made to him for that time period on the grounds that he exceeded the scope of his mandate. The defence counsel filed a motion earlier this week challenging this decision saying it is “unlawful, flawed, void and unfair” and asking the judges to order the court’s registry to pay him for the work he performed during the last three months. Shalluf also requested in his filing the intervention of the chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to give his opinion on the matter.
The judges said in their decision that Shalluf’s mandate was strictly to respond to the observations of Cassese and Arbor within ten days of their submission and the defence counsel failed to file a timely response as requested by the court.
The defence counsel was reprimanded by the judges for filing “an inordinate number of baseless requests and motions; that he has completely disregarded the precise and clear scope of his mandate by adopting his own interpretation of the mandate”. Furthermore the judges described the filings made by Shalluf to challenge the admissibility and the jurisdiction of the ICC in Darfur as “frivolous and vexatious” and that the defence counsel “is in no position to demand payment of fees for that time period”.
The decision is not likely to have any impact on the Darfur case proceedings. Shalluf has previously accused the court in an interview published this week of “racial bias” because of his Middle Eastern background. He also criticized the Sudanese government for “not taking the ICC seriously” and offered to fully cooperate with Khartoum to handle the Darfur case. However the head of Sudan’s bar association Fathi Khalil was quoted as saying that Khartoum is not interested in any dealings with the ICC or Shalluf as such.
The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Luis Moreno Ocampo announced on February 27 that he filed charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Ahmed Muhammed Harun the Sudanese minister for Humanitarian Affairs and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kosheib.
Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statue, but the UN Security Council triggered the provisions under the Statue that enables it to refer situations in non-State parties to the world court if it deems that it is a threat to international peace and security.
(ST)