The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreements, most prominently the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC is designed to complement existing national judicial systems; however, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction if national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes, thus being a "court of last resort," leaving the primary responsibility to exercise jurisdiction over alleged criminals to individual states.
Note that "International Criminal Court" is sometimes initialized as ICCt to distinguish it from "International Chamber of Commerce." Also, the ICC is separate from the International Court of Justice, which is a body to settle disputes between nations, and the Belgian War Crimes Law.
Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army
The Republic of Uganda, a 'state party' of the court (the term indicates that they are a country that have ratified the Court's Rome Statute) referred the above situation to the court on January 29, 2004.
After rigorous analysis in accordance with the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Chief Prosecutor decided to open an investigation into this matter.
On October 6, 2005 the ICC issued its first public arrest warrants for the Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony, his deputy Vincent Otti, and LRA commanders Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odiambo and Dominic Ongwen.
[edit]
The situation in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo, also a state party of the court referred the above situation to the court on April 19, 2004.
The Chief Prosecutor has decided to open an investigation into this matter.[2]
On 2006-03-17 Thomas Lubanga, former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots militia in Ituri, became the first person to be arrested under a warrant issued by the court; he will be the first suspect to face trial at the ICC [3]. A sealed (secret) warrant had been issued for his arrest on 2006-02-10 for the war crime of using child soldiers. He was flown to the court the same day in a French military aircraft.[1]
[edit]
The Central African Republic
The Central African Republic, also a state party of the court referred the above situation to the court on January 6, 2005.
The Chief Prosecutor has not yet decided whether to open an investigation into this matter.
[edit]
Darfur, Sudan
In March 2005, the United Nations Security Council referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan to the court.
The Chief Prosecutor has decided to open an investigation into this matter.
[edit]
Potential cases
[edit]
Alleged war crimes in connection with Invasion of Iraq in March 2003
In March 2003, the United States and its allies, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq. The UK, Australia and Poland are all parties to the ICC Statute and therefore their nationals are liable to prosecution by the court for any relevant crimes. As the United States is not a party, American citizens can only be prosecuted by the court if the crime takes place in the territory of a state party (e.g. Jordan), or if the situation is referred to it by the Security Council.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006, that it had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. Many of these complaints concerned the British participation in the invasion, as well as the alleged responsibility for torture deaths whilst in detention in British-controlled areas.[2]
On 2006-02-09, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, published a letter [4] that he had sent to all those who had communicated with him concerning the above, which set out his conclusions on these matters, following a preliminary investigation of the complaints. He explained in his decision letter, that essentially two sets of complaints were involved.
Complaints concerning the legality of the invasion itself;
Complaints concerning the conduct of hostilities between March and May 2003, which included allegations in respect of
the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks;
wilful killing or inhuman treatment of civilians.
The Prosecutor's conclusions were as follows:
He did not have authority to consider the complaint about the legality of the invasion. Although the ICC Statute includes the crime of "aggression", it indicates that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime until a provision has been adopted which defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to it.
The available information did not provide sufficient evidence for proceeding with an investigation of the complaints in connection with targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks.
The available information did provide a reasonable basis for believing that there had been an estimated 4 to 12 victims of wilful killing and a limited number of victims of inhuman treatment, totaling in all less than 20 persons. However this on its own was not sufficient for the initiation of an investigation by the ICC because the Statute requires consideration of admissibility before the Court, in light of the gravity of the crimes. Bearing in mind that a key consideration in this regard is the number of victims of particularly serious crimes, he concluded that the situation did not appear to meet the "gravity" threshold.
See further The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Cases_before_the_court
Note that "International Criminal Court" is sometimes initialized as ICCt to distinguish it from "International Chamber of Commerce." Also, the ICC is separate from the International Court of Justice, which is a body to settle disputes between nations, and the Belgian War Crimes Law.
Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army
The Republic of Uganda, a 'state party' of the court (the term indicates that they are a country that have ratified the Court's Rome Statute) referred the above situation to the court on January 29, 2004.
After rigorous analysis in accordance with the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Chief Prosecutor decided to open an investigation into this matter.
On October 6, 2005 the ICC issued its first public arrest warrants for the Lord's Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony, his deputy Vincent Otti, and LRA commanders Raska Lukwiya, Okot Odiambo and Dominic Ongwen.
[edit]
The situation in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo, also a state party of the court referred the above situation to the court on April 19, 2004.
The Chief Prosecutor has decided to open an investigation into this matter.[2]
On 2006-03-17 Thomas Lubanga, former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots militia in Ituri, became the first person to be arrested under a warrant issued by the court; he will be the first suspect to face trial at the ICC [3]. A sealed (secret) warrant had been issued for his arrest on 2006-02-10 for the war crime of using child soldiers. He was flown to the court the same day in a French military aircraft.[1]
[edit]
The Central African Republic
The Central African Republic, also a state party of the court referred the above situation to the court on January 6, 2005.
The Chief Prosecutor has not yet decided whether to open an investigation into this matter.
[edit]
Darfur, Sudan
In March 2005, the United Nations Security Council referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan to the court.
The Chief Prosecutor has decided to open an investigation into this matter.
[edit]
Potential cases
[edit]
Alleged war crimes in connection with Invasion of Iraq in March 2003
In March 2003, the United States and its allies, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq. The UK, Australia and Poland are all parties to the ICC Statute and therefore their nationals are liable to prosecution by the court for any relevant crimes. As the United States is not a party, American citizens can only be prosecuted by the court if the crime takes place in the territory of a state party (e.g. Jordan), or if the situation is referred to it by the Security Council.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006, that it had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. Many of these complaints concerned the British participation in the invasion, as well as the alleged responsibility for torture deaths whilst in detention in British-controlled areas.[2]
On 2006-02-09, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, published a letter [4] that he had sent to all those who had communicated with him concerning the above, which set out his conclusions on these matters, following a preliminary investigation of the complaints. He explained in his decision letter, that essentially two sets of complaints were involved.
Complaints concerning the legality of the invasion itself;
Complaints concerning the conduct of hostilities between March and May 2003, which included allegations in respect of
the targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks;
wilful killing or inhuman treatment of civilians.
The Prosecutor's conclusions were as follows:
He did not have authority to consider the complaint about the legality of the invasion. Although the ICC Statute includes the crime of "aggression", it indicates that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime until a provision has been adopted which defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to it.
The available information did not provide sufficient evidence for proceeding with an investigation of the complaints in connection with targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks.
The available information did provide a reasonable basis for believing that there had been an estimated 4 to 12 victims of wilful killing and a limited number of victims of inhuman treatment, totaling in all less than 20 persons. However this on its own was not sufficient for the initiation of an investigation by the ICC because the Statute requires consideration of admissibility before the Court, in light of the gravity of the crimes. Bearing in mind that a key consideration in this regard is the number of victims of particularly serious crimes, he concluded that the situation did not appear to meet the "gravity" threshold.
See further The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Cases_before_the_court
