Follow Us:

Sudan: Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Four Sudanese Officials; US Asset Freeze and Zoellick Statement; UK Jack Straw Calls for ICC Accountability; SOAT Annual Human Rights Report; Editorials and Commentaries

28 Apr 2006

Dear All,

Please find below information on recent developments related to the
International Criminal Court's investigation in Sudan:

(1) The UN Security Council has decided to impose travel restrictions and
financial sanctions specified in resolution 1591 (2005) on four Sudanese
individuals. During an explanation of abstention, Qatar noted that "He felt it
was important not to exert influence on the investigations to be carried out by
the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court."

(2) Following the Security Council decision, US President an executive order on
freezing assets "aimed at those responsible for heinous actions being committed
in Darfur." This follows earlier comments by Deputy Secretary of State Robert
Zoellick highlighting the multifaceted approach of putting an end to the
conflict in Darfur, the fact that the US "will fully cooperate with [the ICC]
and pursue those actions as related to the genocide in Darfur," and that "It's
important to demonstrate that there won't be 'impunability,' [sic] that there
will be accountability."

(3) UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw issued a plea for the international
community to redouble its efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the
conflict in Darfur, noting "We should be clear that those who have committed war
crimes will face justice in the International Criminal Court."

(4) The Sudan Organization Against Torture (SOAT) has issued its Annual Human
Rights Report, which discusses the role of the ICC and assesses the Special
Courts on Crimes Committed in Darfur.

(5) In an editorial, Sudanese writer Alfred Taban explains that the people of
Darfur want both peace and justice. In a Boston Globe editorial, Wesley Clark
and John Prendergast explain "To build even greater leverage for cooperation,
the Bush administration should focus on accountability. [...] The United States
should share what it knows about crimes committed in Darfur to the International
Criminal Court, the body charged with punishing those who commit atrocity crimes
in Darfur."

Please take note of the Coalition's policy on situations before the ICC (below),
which explicitly states that the CICC will NOT take a position on potential or
pending situations before the Court. The Coalition, however, will continue to
provide the most up-to-date information about the ICC.

Warm Regards,
Esti Tambay
Information and Analysis Officer
Coalition for the International Criminal Court

**********************************************
A. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL

1. UN Security Council, Press Release (SC8700), "Security Council Imposes
Travel, Financial Sanctions on 4 Sudanese, Adopting Resolution 1672" - 25 April
2006
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8700.doc.htm

"In a Chapter VII action this afternoon, the Security Council decided to impose
the travel restrictions and financial sanctions specified in resolution 1591
(2005) on four Sudanese individuals.

By the provisions of resolution 1672 (2006), adopted by 12 votes in favour to
none against, with 3 abstentions (China, Qatar, Russian Federation), the Council
identified the individuals as Major General Gaffar Mohamed Elhassan, Commander
of the Western Military Region for the Sudanese Air Force; Sheikh Musa Hilal,
Paramount Chief of the Jalul Tribe in North Darfur; Adam Yacub Shant, Su-danese
Liberation Army Commander; and Gabril Abdul Kareem Badri, National Move-ment for
Reform and Development Field Commander. [...]"

Explanations of Vote [...]

JAMAL NASSER AL-BADER (Qatar) said his country's abstention was based on the
fact that, during consultations on the text, Qatar did not find proof that would
condemn those persons and justify sanctions against them. He had requested,
several times, to see the proof and to ensure that relevant resolutions and
guidelines followed by the sanctions committee were respected. He felt it was
important not to exert influence on the investigations to be carried out by the
Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. [...]"

**********************************************
B. US ASSET FREEZE AND STATEMENTS

1. Reuters (UK), "Bush blocks assets related to Sudan's Darfur" - 27 April 2006
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-04-
27T175541Z_01_WAT005455_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SUDAN-DARFUR.xml

"President George W. Bush issued an executive order on Thursday freezing the
assets of anyone deemed to have posed a threat to the peace process or stability
in Sudan's Darfur region. Bush said he was taking the action because "an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the
United States is posed by the persistence of violence in Sudan's Darfur region,
particularly against civilians."

The order implements international sanctions imposed by U.S. Security Council
resolutions that were adopted on March 29, 2005, and earlier this week, on April
25, 2006.

"These sanctions are aimed at those responsible for heinous actions being
committed in Darfur. The United States will continue to work with its
international partners to provide humanitarian assistance, support human rights,
and bring peace to Darfur," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a
statement. [...]

2. Statement by Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, State Department
Daily Briefing, Brookings Institution Discussion, "Current Policy Options on
Darfur" - 13 April 2006
(link not available)

“[…] Second point -- we see the sanctions point within a broader context. I
didn't mention, but there's a separate process under the International Criminal
Court, which is also related to accountability. But as you know -- as you
probably know -- that's an autonomous process. The United States accepted that
process. And indeed, under our domestic law, if they ask for information and
help we try to provide that help. But I think one needs to see those steps
within the context of the larger steps. You do want the threat of action
against people who've done horrible things, and I hope that will press others to
cooperate with the process. At the same time, I want to try to reach a peace
accord and create some chance for these people to go back and secure conditions.

So it's a combination of how these events fit together, and that was reflected
in the U.N. resolutions. I mean, remember there are three U.N. resolutions that
started this process. One was the peacekeeping for north and south; one was the
International Criminal Court; the other was the sanctions system. And what
we've now started to do is build on the extension of the peacekeeping resolution
for the south in effort to try to create that peacekeeping resolution for
Darfur. […]

MR. ZOELLICK: All I can tell you is -- as a general point, but then they go to
specifics -- is we do share a sense of urgency. I hope I've conveyed to you
that there are a lot of steps here and the best way is if you can bring a
variety of parties along or the gentleman to your right, you've got that option.
And then you have to tell me whether you want to pursue that option and how
effectively that helps the people in Darfur, okay.

Now, take each part of this -- the International Criminal Court. As I mentioned,
the International Criminal Court is autonomous. I don't know the state of its
investigation, but we will fully cooperate with it and pursue those actions as
related to the genocide in Darfur.

The second one was sort of the sanctions issue. Here there is a challenge in
that if part of your goal is to be able to perhaps get people's financial
assets, you don't want to reveal the names before you take the action, but you
have to get identifier information. [...] We're trying to do whatever we can in
those dimensions.

And this really does kind of connect with the other question. It's important to
demonstrate that there won't be "impunability," that there will be
accountability. [...]”

**********************************************
C. JACK STRAW MENTIONS ICC IN CALLING FOR PEACE IN DARFUR

1. Press Association, "Straw Urges Redoubled Effort to Bring Peace to Darfur" -
27 April 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5782366,00.html

"Foreign Secretary Jack Straw issued a plea for the international community to
redouble its efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Darfur.
[...]

"We should make full use of sanctions and the arms embargo. We should be clear
that those who have committed war crimes will face justice in the International
Criminal Court. And at the same time we should hold out a positive future for
Sudan if a settlement can be reached: international respectability; an end to
isolation; debt relief; World Trade Organisation membership; a reconstruction
package. [...]"

**********************************************
D. SOAT ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT

1. Sudan Organization Against Torture (SOAT), "Annual Human Rights Report" - 12
April 2006
http://www.sudantribune.com/IMG/pdf/SOAT_Annual_Report_2005-2006.pdf

"RECOMMENDATIONS - DARFUR
[...] To this end, SOAT urges all parties to the conflict to:
• Cease all attacks on civilians and adhere to their commitments under the
ceasefire agreement and all UN Security Council resolutions;
• Recognise the significant progress in addressing impunity made by the referral
of the situation in Darfur to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) by acknowledging its central role in holding to account persons who
bear the greatest responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity
committed in the region;
• So far, there has been little political will to bring the perpetrators of
crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of
international law, to justice notwithstanding the establishment of the Special
Criminal Court for Events in Darfur. SOAT calls on the government to identify
and bring to justice all security apparatus and militias responsible for attacks
on civilians;
• Ensure the Special Courts for Events in Darfur are in line with international
standards of fair trial

Special Courts on Crimes Committed in Darfur [pg. 34-37]"

**********************************************
E. EDITORIALS AND COMMENTARIES

1. The Khartoum Monitor, Alfred Taban, "UN must implement its own resolutions" -
24 April 2006
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=15240

"The United States decision to seek a [UN] Security Council vote on a resolution
to slap sanctions on four Sudanese for their role in the Darfur conflict in
western Sudan is a child's play. I do not know what the real intention of the
United States is.

The four gentlemen named as culprits in the Darfur genocide are really very
small fish that are not even worth catching. [...]

This is a kids game. Where are the leaders of these groups? Where are the top
commanders? Where are the commanders in chief of these armies? Where are the
people giving orders? Where are the 51 persons who have been referred to the
International Criminal Court [ICC]? [...]

Negotiations are continuing in Abuja for the resolution of the conflict in
Darfur. The people in Darfur want peace but they also want justice, they believe
it is only justice that will bring sustainable and honourable peace. Thus while
the people in Darfur are negotiating for their rights in their own region and in
Khartoum they are also seeking redress.

While they are talking peace, they are also looking for their loved ones who
they lost, they are also trying to find out what happened to their relatives who
disappeared in their prime. They are seeking answers to some of the most cruel
murders that have taken place and remain unresolved, they are trying to dry
their tears, they are seeking justice.

Peace and justice are two different procedures, moving side by side, one must
not be achieved at the expense of the other, unless the people of Darfur say so.

If peace and justice are achieved and the people of Darfur decide that they
would like to forgive those who have wronged them and I am aware the people of
Darfur have a big forgiving heart, then let it be so.

Until then the UN must implement to the letter its own resolutions, including
that calling for the prosecution of the 51 persons who have caused so much harm
to the people of Darfur."

2. The Boston Globe, Wesley Clark and John Prendergast, "A US Plan for Darfur" -
10 April 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/10/a_us
_plan_for_darfur/?p1=MEWell_Pos3

"Once again, the drumbeat is intensifying for stronger action to end the untold
human suffering in Darfur, Sudan.

Senator Hillary Clinton recently sent a letter to President Bush, warning that
"our continued inaction will enable the killings to continue." A senior UN
official told us that the international community is "keeping people alive with
our humanitarian assistance until they are massacred." After leading a
bipartisan congressional delegation to Darfur recently, House Democratic leader
Nancy Pelosi stated, "We all went to Darfur with a sense of deep concern, and we
all left with a sense of outrage and urgency." The question now is whether all
this noise will translate into concrete measures to protect the people of
Darfur. [...]

But Bush's unscripted remarks on Darfur are consistent with his erratically
implied policy of siding with oppressed people against their oppressors.
His administration has yet to form a united front on Darfur because of competing
interests at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. Bush needs to pull
together these disparate players and create a real policy to end atrocities,
punish human rights violators, and create sustainable peace. [...]

To build even greater leverage for cooperation, the Bush administration should
focus on accountability. The United States has the best signal, satellite, and
human intelligence in the world. The United States should share what it knows
about crimes committed in Darfur to the International Criminal Court, the body
charged with punishing those who commit atrocity crimes in Darfur. In addition,
the United States should press much harder for UN Security Council sanctions
against government and rebel officials most responsible for the crisis. Properly
executed, such a policy would strengthen cooperation from the government of
Sudan. [...]

**********************************************
CICC'S POLICY ON THE REFERRAL AND PROSECUTION OF SITUATIONS BEFORE THE ICC:
The Coalition for the ICC is not an organ of the Court. The CICC is an
independent NGO movement dedicated to the establishment of the International
Criminal Court as a fair, effective, and independent international organization.
The Coalition will continue to provide the most up-to-date information about the
ICC and to help coordinate global action to effectively implement the Rome
Statute of the ICC. The Coalition will also endeavor to respond to basic queries
and to raise awareness about the ICC's trigger mechanisms and procedures, as
they develop. The Coalition as a whole, and its secretariat, do not endorse or
promote specific investigations or prosecutions or take a position on situations
before the ICC. However, individual CICC members may endorse referrals, provide
legal and other support on investigations, or develop partnerships with local
and other organizations in the course of their efforts.

Communications to the ICC can be sent to:
ICC
P.O. Box 19519
2500 CM The Hague
The Netherlands