International Criminal Court is Needed to Bring Justice to Darfur
Refugees International
WASHINGTON, DC, Feb 22, 2005 — U.S. efforts to block the International Criminal Court (ICC) from investigating and holding individuals responsible for the death and displacement in Darfur are delaying the onset of justice and reconciliation in Sudan and easing pressure on government, militia and rebel groups to stop the killing, Refugees International said today. The majority of UN Security Council members agree that war crimes and crimes against humanity are taking place in Darfur and that they must be addressed legally to end the climate of impunity. However, the US will not join the European Union and UN agencies in supporting the ICC to accomplish this goal.
“The most cost-effective, timely and practical way to end the atrocities in Darfur and bring these actors to justice is to allow the International Criminal Court to adjudicate these crimes,” said Mamie Mutchler, Human Rights Advocate for Refugees International. “The US should join its allies in the European Union and UN and support this option.”
The ongoing violence and blatant attacks on the civilian population by the Government of Sudan, Arab militias (Janjaweed) and rebel forces in Darfur, have resulted in the forced displacement of almost 2 million Sudanese and the death of as many as 300,000 people. In response to the ongoing atrocities, the UN established a Commission of Inquiry which recommended to the UN Security Council on February 16 that referral of cases to the ICC was “the only credible way of bringing alleged perpetrators to justice…” The Commission went on to note, “With an existing set of well-defined rules of procedure and evidence, the [ICC] is the best suited institution for ensuring speedy investigations leading to arrests and demonstrably fair trials.”
The US government has said it favors other options instead, including an ad hoc international tribunal, such as the Rwanda Tribunal in Tanzania. The Commission rejected the option of an ad hoc international tribunal, noting that it was “likely [to] prove unduly time-consuming and expensive.” It is estimated that an ad hoc court would cost as much as US$150 million, in comparison with the current budget of the ICC of US$87 million. Given the lack of international support for an ad hoc international tribunal, the US has recently proposed the creation of a permanent African Union court. Supporters of the ICC view a permanent African court as a duplication of the ICC and have been unwilling to endorse the US proposal.
“The UN Commission of Inquiry has made clear that the ICC is the only viable option for ending impunity,” said Mutchler. “Rather than advocating for more expensive and time-consuming processes, the US should support the ICC — an already established system – to immediately address the crimes committed in Darfur. Considering the acknowledged shortfall in funding for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, clearly this money could be better spent.”
Even the US Ambassador at large for War Crimes Issues, Pierre-Richard Prosper, has in the past acknowledged serious problems with ad hoc international tribunals, such as the Rwanda Tribunal. Referring to the Yugoslavia and Rwandan Tribunals, Prosper stated to the Committee on International Relations of the US House of Representatives on February 28, 2002, “In both Tribunals, at times, the professionalism of some of the personnel has been called into question with allegations of mismanagement and abuse. And in both Tribunals, the process, at times, has been costly, has lacked efficiency, has been too slow, and has been too removed from the everyday experience of the people and the victims.”
When presenting the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the Security Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, reported cases of systematic rape and killings of civilian populations who were forced to flee their homes. They join the millions of internally displaced people in Sudan who continue to face persecution from Government authorities, Arab militia and rebel forces in camps where they seek refuge.
For example, in the South Darfur village of Kailek, villagers were attacked on two separate occasions by Government and Janjaweed forces. The Commission stated in its report, “Following the second attack in March 2004, the villagers fled to the mountains where they were hunted down by mounted Janjaweed. The military shelled the area; some were captured shot and killed. For a period of about 50 days, up to 30,000 people were confined in a small open area?. Some men were singled out and summarily shot. There are reports of people being thrown into fires and burnt alive. Women and children were separated out, confined in walled areas, and periodically taken away by their captors to be raped.”
According to Samantha Power, the Pulitzer-Prize winning author of A Problem from Hell, the ICC is the court venue most favored by Darfurians displaced by the conflict for seeking justice and least favored by perpetrators such as Musa Hilal of the Janjaweed.
“The victims who must flee their homes only to see their wives and daughters raped and their husbands and sons shot favor the use of the International Criminal Court,” said Mutchler. “It seems only fair that their voices should weigh heavily in this debate.”