Follow Us:

Sudan: President el-Bashir rejects ICC jurisdiction, US Position on Darfur and the ICC, Statements by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw

21 Feb 2006

Please find below excerpts from several recent articles reporting on
developments related to the ICC's investigation of the situation in Sudan. In
particular:

(1) Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir recently reiterated his country's refusal
to extradite any suspect to the ICC, maintaining that "The Sudanese judiciary
solely has the jurisdiction of ruling in cases in Sudan, especially those in
Darfur."

(2) US Secretary of State Rice has stated that genocide is continuing to occur
in Darfur. The article notes " Khartoum denies U.S. charges of genocide but the
International Criminal Court is investigating alleged war crimes there." Another
article discusses the possibility of the United States' contribution to a
peacekeeping force in Sudan and argues that potential ICC jurisdiction over such
a force is an additional worry.

(3) British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has recently been vocal on the
situation in Darfur and the role of the ICC, in both a statement to the African
Union and an editorial in the International Herald Tribune.

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 T. Tambay
Information and Analysis Officer
Coalition for the International Criminal Court

**********************************************
A. PRESIDENT OMAR EL-BASHIR REITERATES REFUSAL TO EXTRADITE

1. Xinhua News Agency, "Sudan vows not to extradite suspects of Darfur war
crimes" - 19 February 2006
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/19/content_4200443.htm

"Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir reiterated his country's refusal to extradite
any suspect in connection with Darfur war crimes to the International Criminal
Court (ICC), the independent Al-Sahafa daily reported on Sunday. 'The Sudanese
judiciary solely has the jurisdiction of ruling in cases in Sudan, especially
those in Darfur,' el-Bashir said at a celebration marking the golden jubilee of
the Sudanese Judiciary on Saturday. The president said his country had full
confidence in the judiciary as well as in its judges for realizing justice and
the rule of law. Sudan's Judiciary is capable of providing the public with fair
trials and any defendant with the right of defense, safeguarding human rights
and simplifying the legal procedures for all people, he said. [...]

Among the 51 names listed are "militants and civilians about whom there is much
convincing evidence," said Antonio Cassese, an Italian law professor heading the
U.N. commission of inquiry on Darfur crimes.

The Sudanese government, however, refuses to extradite any of its citizens to
the ICC, insisting that it can prosecute any war criminal in its own courts."

2. Sudan Tribune, "Only Sudanese judiciary can try Darfur war crimes -
al-Bashir" - 19 February 2006
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=14151

"President Omer al-Bashir, has stressed that the Sudanese Judiciary has solely
the jurisdiction of ruling in cases in Sudan, especially that in Darfur, the
official SUNA reported. In his address at the celebration marking the Golden
Jubilee of the Judiciary Saturday, al-Bashir affirmed the government full
confidence in the Judiciary and judges for realizing justice and the rule of
law. He pointed out that the Judiciary is capable to provide public fair trials
and the right of defence for any defendant, safeguard the human rights and to
simplify the legal procedures for all people. He referred to the role of the
Judiciary for quelling "the fire of the sedition" in Darfur.

The International Criminal Court investigates war crimes in Darfur, as the U.N.
Security Council had mandated it to do. The Sudanese government opposes the
International Criminal Court, insisting it can prosecute any war criminals in
its own courts. The ICC investigation is the first to be carried out against the
will of the country where the alleged crimes occurred. [...]"

**********************************************
B. US POSITION ON DARFUR AND THE ICC

1. Reuters, Sue Pleming, "Rice says genocide continues in Darfur, U.N. must act"
- 16 February 2006
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16282737.htm

"U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday genocide was
continuing in Sudan's Darfur region and she urged the African Union to accept
the help of U.N. peacekeepers to stop the atrocities. Speaking to U.S. lawmakers
about Darfur, Rice voiced strong concern over what was happening in western
Sudan and said the international community must act.

"It is our view that genocide was committed and in fact it continues in Darfur,"
she said, adding, "We are doing everything we can to deal with the impact of the
situation in Darfur."

Tens of thousands of people have been killed in Darfur since mostly non-Arab
rebels took up arms in early 2003, accusing the central government of neglect.
Khartoum denies U.S. charges of genocide but the International Criminal Court is
investigating alleged war crimes there. [...]"

2. Cybercast News Service, Patrick Goodenough, "US Pressed to Provide
Peacekeepers for Darfur" - 15 February 2006
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200
602%5CFOR20060215a.html

"Amid growing calls for the U.S. to play a larger role in ending the bloodshed
in Sudan's Darfur region, the government is playing down suggestions that the
United Nations wants America to provide troops as part of a blue-hat
peacekeeping mission. [...]

For many Americans, there are other worries too.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was set up three-and-a-half years ago to
deal with cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and other rights
violations. Washington opposed the initiative, due to concerns that the tribunal
would be used to bring politically-motivated cases against Americans -
especially U.S. troops abroad. To further minimize the chances of that
happening, the U.S. has signed agreements with some 100 countries whose
governments have agreed not to surrender American citizens to the ICC without
Washington's consent. [...]

Although Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute and so could not bring a case
before the ICC, other countries that have ratified it include some - like
Sudan's neighbor, Kenya - that have refused to sign "article 98" agreements.

In the event U.S. soldiers were to take part in a peacekeeping mission in Sudan
and be accused of crimes, they could in theory find themselves before the
tribunal. [...]

Tom Kilgannon, president of the Freedom Alliance, said Tuesday Bush should
reject a U.N. plea for U.S. forces to take part in a mission in Darfur.

"We ask our men and women in uniform to sacrifice a great deal, but asking
American service members to risk their lives in a civil war and potentially
answer to the anti-American whims and dubious legal machinations of the
International Criminal Court at the same time is asking too much," he said.

Last May, anti-war groups in the U.K. made submissions to ICC prosecutors
accusing the British government of acting unlawfully by participating in the war
in Iraq, and alleging that British soldiers had acted unlawfully by detaining
and mistreating Iraqi civilians.

Although those complaints dealt with troops in combat rather than peacekeepers,
the case provided an example of the types of concerns the U.S. has about the
ICC."

**********************************************
C. EDITORIAL AND STATEMENT BY JACK STRAW

1. International Herald Tribune, Editorial, Jack Straw, "Darfur: Stop the
killing, or pay the price" - 17 February 2006
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/02/16/opinion/edstraw.
php

"[...] A good start would be taking the following five specific actions: [...]
And fifth, bring to justice the perpetrators of atrocities. [...]

There will be direct consequences for them, too. The international community is
not going to allow individuals responsible for gross human rights violations or
blocking the peace process to escape the consequences. We know who these people
are.

There is already provision for sanctions against such individuals under UN
Security Council Resolution 1591. The Security Council's sanctions committee is
already considering several members of the Sudanese government and the rebel
movements. Other names can, and will, be put forward. The United Kingdom will
not hesitate to do so. Nor do we rule out additional UN sanctions if the parties
fail to make progress.

And the International Criminal Court, with the full support of the Security
Council, is pursuing allegations of war crimes and grave human rights abuses.
They too will be watching closely who does and who doesn't do what in Darfur
over the coming months.

The international community's patience is limited. If the parties do not reach
an agreement soon we will need to start looking at the alternatives. Those
alternatives will leave some of the parties in Abuja, and the absent leaders,
with a smaller role to play than they would have achieved had they taken part
and reached an agreement.

We are not there yet. The international community is serious about wanting these
talks to succeed. The people of Darfur need them to succeed. The parties
gathered in Abuja have a duty to deliver."

2. Agence France Presse, "Britain rebukes Darfur's warring parties" - 14
February 2006
(Link not available)

"British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Tuesday sternly rebuked both sides
fighting in the brutal civil war in Sudan's war-torn region of Darfur and
demanded that peace talks be speeded up.

In an unusually frank speech reflecting the growing anger of the broader
international community, Straw told delegates to the Africa Union's Darfur peace
talks in Abuja that they had failed to live up to their promises. [...]

"And remember too that, with our full support, and with the full support of the
Security Council, the International Criminal Court is pursuing allegations of
war crimes and grave human rights abuses in Darfur." [...]"

**********************************************
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