The lCC and the Politicization of Justice
The International Criminal Court and the Politicization of Justice
1. The referral of The Darfur case to the International Criminal Court "ICC", by the Security Council as per resolution 1593/2005, has been considered by many legal experts, as a serious precedent in the judicial history and a serious attitude to influence the neutrality, and independence of the newly born international judicial institution.
The United Nations has been keen to preserve the independence of the judicial system both at the local and international level. The UN seventh conference on Crime Prevention and Treatment of criminals {1985}, outlined the principles of the independence of the local judicial system and urged the member states to observe them. Internationally, the International Court of Justice "ICJ" has always been independent and neutral.
2. The Rome statute of the "ICC" gave the Security Council which is a POLITICAL ORGAN, the right to interfere and refer some cases to the ICC, even if the country is not party to the ICC. This idea contradicts with one of the basic principles of justice, and the separation of powers. The judicial power should always be independent, free, and impartial, otherwise people will loose confidence, and respect to the judicial power.
3. Another weakness of Resolution {1593} is that, it exempted some nationalities from the jurisdiction of the court -even if they commit crimes in Darfur- that grants them immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC, and nullifies the whole theory of the ICC which is based on fighting impunity! It also reflects the selective criteria and double standards conducted by the Security Council.
4. The Prosecutor General of the ICC, accused the President of the Sudan of committing war crimes, and genocide. This is a very dangerous trend, because when you accuse an elected President of a sovereign state- who is the symbol of the state's unity, integrity and independence-it implies that you are trying to destabilize the government, and threaten the independence, of that state.. It also sends a wrong signal to the armed movements in Darfur so as not to sit with the government, and resume the peace talks; and consequently delay the anticipated peace deal.
5. The Prosecutor General of the ICC ignored the genuine efforts made by the Sudan judiciary to investigate the war crimes in Darfur. The judiciary system in the Sudan is well known for its independence and long experience. It conducted many trials against those who committed crimes in Darfur including soldiers, and security of officers. But due to the pressures exerted on him, the Prosecutor General, did not recognize the capabilities of the Sudanese judicial system although he praised the judiciary in Sudan once in 2006.
6. The huge pressure exerted by NGOs, Politicians and the media on the Prosecutor General of the ICC, on Darfur case is another factor which influenced the process of justice. In October 2006, while the Prosecutor General was addressing NGO's forum in New York, one of the participants said, "but Darfur has symbolic significance as far as world public opinion is concerned. Darfur is at the top of every one's agenda as the most extreme situation of human rights violations. Because of its symbolic significance, what the Prosecutor does in Darfur will shape opinion internationally of the office of the Prosecutor for the court" unquote.
Then what can we expect from the Prosecutor General, who had now choice but to respond to these pressures, and victimize the Sudan; hence ensure that the international opinion of the court, and the office of the Prosecutor be positive.
7. It is also worth mentioning that the Prosecutor General received requests from individuals and NGO's to investigate the situation in Iraq, which is well known to every one, to their surprise he claimed that there is no enough evidence of war crimes!!!! We should also note that the ICC is now handling three cases all of them are in Africa. Some observers argue that this of deliberate action against Africa, because the civil wars and internal conflicts are everywhere, why only picking African cases?
To those observers, the interference of the ICC in one of the said cases was behind the delay of signing of a peace deal, because the issuing of the arrest warrants by the ICC against the rebel leaders discouraged them from finalizing the peace deal. That means the ICC became an obstacle towards peace.
It is a great disappointment for those who thought that the ICC would be an independent, impartial, and neutral judicial institution, that promotes the principles of justice. Instead, it is becoming a tool used by certain political powers to achieve certain goals through victimizing other States.
