CHILDREN OF GENOCIDE: Some of the Sudanese children orphaned
during 2004 attacks by Sudan government troops and the Janjaweed Arab
militias, outside
their home in Kidingir, south of Darfur
Image by: REUTERS
their home in Kidingir, south of Darfur Image by: REUTERS
The saga over his indictment by the International
Criminal Court dates back to the outbreak of rebellion in the Darfur
region of Sudan in 2003. al-Bashir responded to the challenge with
utmost ferocity, arming and recruiting militias from tribes friendly to
his regime and turning them on ethnic groups that supposedly backed his
enemies.
The result was a brutal scorched-earth campaign in which countless villages were razed and their terrified inhabitants herded into squalid camps.
At least 2million people - that's a third of Darfur's population - were driven from their homes. Another 300000 died in one of the bloodiest conflicts of the century.
The question of how to hold Bashir accountable
has been bitterly controversial. The Western powers chose to refer the
war in Darfur to the ICC for investigation by its chief prosecutor.
This was not as simple as it might appear. Sudan did not sign
the Rome Statute that created the ICC, so the court had no jurisdiction
over Darfur. The US, UK and France overcame this by securing the
passage of UN Resolution 1593, which referred the "situation in Darfur"
to the ICC in 2005.
There followed
four years of investigation by the court's chief prosecutor,
culminating in the ICC's "pre-trial chamber" in 2009 issuing an
indictment and arrest warrant.
al-Bashir was charged with "intentionally directing
attacks against a civilian population", involving "pillage as a war
crime", along with "extermination", "rape" and "forcible transfer". He
was indicted on two counts of "war crimes" and five of "crimes against
humanity".
At this stage, however, the judges rejected the prosecutor's attempt to charge him with "genocide", arguing that the crucial question of whether al-Bashir had intended to eradicate a given ethnic group was unproved. Under the Genocide Convention of 1948, the crime is defined as an act "committed with intent to destroy" a specific group of humanity.
But Luis Moreno-Ocampo, then the ICC's chief prosecutor, did not give up. He argued that Bashir's decision to put millions into squalid, disease-ridden camps showed intention to wipe them out.
In 2010, the judges changed their minds and agreed: they issued a new arrest warrant for Bashir, adding three charges of genocide.
al-Bashir became the only head of state yet to be formally accused of genocide. Ever since, he has carried the equivalent of the Mark of Cain.
All 123 members of the ICC are legally obliged to arrest him, including 34 African states. Some African presidents appear to believe the indictment is a Western plot. In solidarity with Bashir, they have shown themselves willing to ignore legal obligations.
Source- Daily Telegraph
Criminal Court dates back to the outbreak of rebellion in the Darfur
region of Sudan in 2003. al-Bashir responded to the challenge with
utmost ferocity, arming and recruiting militias from tribes friendly to
his regime and turning them on ethnic groups that supposedly backed his
enemies.The result was a brutal scorched-earth campaign in which countless villages were razed and their terrified inhabitants herded into squalid camps.
At least 2million people - that's a third of Darfur's population - were driven from their homes. Another 300000 died in one of the bloodiest conflicts of the century.
The question of how to hold Bashir accountable
has been bitterly controversial. The Western powers chose to refer the
war in Darfur to the ICC for investigation by its chief prosecutor.This was not as simple as it might appear. Sudan did not sign
the Rome Statute that created the ICC, so the court had no jurisdiction
over Darfur. The US, UK and France overcame this by securing the
passage of UN Resolution 1593, which referred the "situation in Darfur"
to the ICC in 2005.There followed
four years of investigation by the court's chief prosecutor,
culminating in the ICC's "pre-trial chamber" in 2009 issuing an
indictment and arrest warrant.al-Bashir was charged with "intentionally directing
attacks against a civilian population", involving "pillage as a war
crime", along with "extermination", "rape" and "forcible transfer". He
was indicted on two counts of "war crimes" and five of "crimes against
humanity".At this stage, however, the judges rejected the prosecutor's attempt to charge him with "genocide", arguing that the crucial question of whether al-Bashir had intended to eradicate a given ethnic group was unproved. Under the Genocide Convention of 1948, the crime is defined as an act "committed with intent to destroy" a specific group of humanity.
But Luis Moreno-Ocampo, then the ICC's chief prosecutor, did not give up. He argued that Bashir's decision to put millions into squalid, disease-ridden camps showed intention to wipe them out.
In 2010, the judges changed their minds and agreed: they issued a new arrest warrant for Bashir, adding three charges of genocide.
al-Bashir became the only head of state yet to be formally accused of genocide. Ever since, he has carried the equivalent of the Mark of Cain.
All 123 members of the ICC are legally obliged to arrest him, including 34 African states. Some African presidents appear to believe the indictment is a Western plot. In solidarity with Bashir, they have shown themselves willing to ignore legal obligations.
Source- Daily Telegraph
No comments:
Post a Comment