We were invited to the international conference on the International Criminal Court (ICC) spearheaded by the Philippine Judicial Academy last Friday, and supported by the amiable Ambassador Rubens Fedele of the Italian Embassy. The conference had legal experts both from the Philippines and the international community as presenters, and participants found it a very enlightening and informative occasion. The ICC conference was meant to be a knowledge-sharing activity where its relevance within the context of global, regional and national situations was discussed. Another aim was to disseminate information on the ICC’s key features, its role in the protection of human rights and how it complements the national justice system.
The ICC should not be confused with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is the judicial arm of the United Nations and the same entity where Senator Miriam Santiago hopes to become part of. The ICJ is designed to settle disputes among nations while the ICC focuses on individuals accused of the “most serious crimes” like genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. The ICC is also an independent international organization and unlike the ICJ, is not part of the UN.
The ICC traces its roots from the Nuremberg trials in the late 1940s when the US, the UK, France and the Soviet Union tried German officers responsible for atrocities committed during World War II. At the time, the need for an international and permanent court to tackle such atrocities was already felt, but it was only in 1998 when the UN General Assembly convened in Rome, paving the way for the adoption of the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998 by a vote of 120. Seven countries including the US, China, Iraq and Israel voted against its adoption. Finally on July 1, 2002, it came into force legally after 60 countries ratified it.
While 106 countries have joined the ICC, there is still a lot of work to be done considering that countries like Russia and Egypt have not ratified the Rome Statute. China and India continue to oppose it. ICC advocates also find it ironic that the US seems to have become a major stumbling block. Bill Clinton signed the statute in December 2000 but George Bush later “unsigned” it. Experts say this stems from fears that the ICC might be used to harass US military personnel deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. Naturally, the US has to protect its interests and make sure its personnel are not subjected to aggravation especially those that are politically motivated or instigated by US enemies.
While Article 5 of the Rome Statute lists the most serious crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, they have yet to define what the crime of aggression constitutes. Since its establishment, the ICC has conducted investigations on the situations in Darfur, Uganda, Congo and the Central African Republic, with four people already in custody. A big issue confronting the ICC today concerns Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir who was indicted by ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo for crimes against humanity and the genocide in Darfur where hundreds of thousands were raped and murdered by Sudanese militia, with more than two million dislocated from their homes.
There are moves to halt the ICC investigation, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy mulling the possibility of freezing the indictment and granting immunity to Al-Bashir if he implements “radical and immediate changes in Sudanese policies.” Opponents say Sarkozy’s proposal will just encourage Al-Bashir to make false promises as an act of political expediency.
Obviously, the Rome Statute is far from perfect, with compromises made for its adoption. Nevertheless, it is remarkable in the sense that it has become recognized as a “court of last resort,” where the most powerful individuals — even presidents — can be made accountable for horrible crimes.
As the ICC conference emphasized, its “overarching goal” is to end impunity for perpetrators of the most serious crimes that concern the international community. It must be made clear, however, that the ICC is not meant to replace a country’s national justice system, but rather, to complement it. Thus, the ICC can prosecute cases only if the national justice system does not carry out proceedings, or when it claims to do so but in reality is unable or unwilling to carry out such proceedings.
The Philippines signed the Rome statute in December 2000, but to date has not been ratified by the Philippine Senate. Supporters of the ICC are urging GMA to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification since it can become a deterrent to the commission of human rights violations. Chief Justice Reynato Puno reiterated the importance of ratifying the Rome Statute since it could strengthen the rule of law in this country in the sense that genocide and crimes against humanity can be taken to the International Criminal Court. In his closing remarks, the Chief Justice emphasized “the need for an International Court of Criminal Law as an additional firewall against serious violations of human rights ought to be beyond dispute,” stressing that the ICC “gives hope to the hopeless in States where human rights are written as creeds but violated in deeds.”
Chief Justice Puno has always believed that those who have less in life should have more in law, that justice should be dispensed with speed and fairness especially if the poor are involved. I’m told he is a lay preacher in his church and is involved in a lot of church activities. He is probably one of the best Chief Justices we ever had, and who knows, he may just lead this country one day.
* * *
E-mail: babeseyeview@yahoo.com