15 Jun The ICC Prosecutor Moves Ahead on Darfur
Yesterday, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) for the International Criminal Court issued its Third Report to the United Nations Security Council on the situation in Darfur. The Report, which was completed pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1593, summarizes the status of the ICC’s investigative efforts over the six months since its Second Report was issued in December 2005. The text of the Third Report is available here. The ICC’s Prosecutor, Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, issued an accompanying statement as well.
The report contains two pieces of interesting information. First, the OTP reports that the African Union has apparently provided sufficient assurances of future cooperation with the ICC to alleviate earlier tensions over the ICC’s investigations concerning Darfur. Second, the Report offers the Prosecutor’s view that Sudan’s ongoing efforts to use various domestic tribunals as a means for invoking the principle of complimentarity have not convinced the ICC to back off. Specifically, the Third Report concludes:
Based upon the current OTP assessments, it does not appear that the national authorities have investigated or prosecuted, or are investigating and prosecuting, cases that are or will be the focus of OTP attention such as to render those cases inadmissible before the ICC. The Office reinforces the point made in previous reports, that this assessment is on-going and a final determination will be made following a full investigation of the specific cases that are selected for prosecution. This will require the continued cooperation of the Government of the Sudan in providing access to proceedings, to officials and institutions, including in Darfur, and to relevant documentation.
The bottom line is that, unless the situation on the ground changes, it sure looks like the ICC is moving toward prosecutions for Darfur.
Professor Hollis,
Is it still the case that the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has yet to function? And, if so, were it operating, would Sudan be a state subject to ACHPR jurisdiction?
And assuming a negative answer to the first question, could not the ACHPR still play some role here, given the apparent (newfound) willingness of the African Union to cooperate with the OTP? I would think it might serve as an appropriate ‘rite of passage’ for the ACHPR. Or would this unduly complicate matters?
The principle of complementarity in this instance seems to have been tactically employed by the Sudanese government to forestall inevitable involvement of the ICC. Do you agree with that assessment? (If an affirmative answer, Professor Heller’s latest paper is all the more apposite.)
Thank you for whatever time and attention you can devote to these questions.
typo: ‘principle of complementarity’ (Athough we might find a function for a ‘principle of complimentarity’ [in the sense of ‘given free as a courtesy or favor’] in international law as well!)