International Criminal Court Gets Involved in the Darfur Crisis

On August 18th 2005, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights organized a discussion on the role that the International Criminal Court (ICC) should play in bringing to justice those responsible for atrocities committed in Darfur over the past two years. On March 31st 2005, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1593 referring the Darfur case to the ICC, despite threats by the US to veto such a resolution. The US initially opposed the resolution because of its unwillingness to legitimize the ICC by voting in favor of the referral, preferring instead the creation of ad hoc tribunals similar to those prosecuting the perpetrators of war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. However, the US finally abstained after having included provisions that would exempt any US nationals from the Court’s reach. Curiously, in its dogmatic opposition to the ICC, the US frequently evokes issues of sovereignty – the same excuse utilized by Sudanese officials in their opposition to the ICC. In general the US opposition to a permanent and independent international mechanism holding anyone accountable for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, presents a negative example for Arab dictators by demonstrating that power and wealth place one above the law. The participants in the Cairo Institute discussion argued that those responsible for the deaths of 300,000 civilians, the displacement of two million more, the reported rapes of countless women, and the burning and looting of villages should be held accountable for their crimes in fair and open trials. The participants supported the intervention of the ICC, given that the judiciary in Sudan is not independent but subordinate to the executive. They argued that since top officials in the government are themselves under investigation for backing Arab tribes and the Janjaweed in their brutal campaigns to quell the Darfur rebellions, an outside arbiter is needed. The Sudanese regime, on the other hand, opposes the idea of trying Sudanese citizens in international courts claiming that such interventionist measures violate the state’s sovereignty and would only serve to exacerbate Sudan’s internal crises. Top Sudanese officials also suggested alternative “authentic” methods of justice such as tribal conferences mediated by the government to resolve differences and reach reconciliation. However, no guarantees exist on the integrity of such conferences given the fact that the government and any possible local mediator lacks credibility and neutrality. Despite protests by the Sudanese government, the ICC is currently conducting investigations of the 51 suspects on the list received from the UN Commission of Inquiry on Darfur while calling for the collaboration and help of the international community including the Sudanese government and the African Union.