Human Rights Watch issues its report for the assembly
In preparation for the assembly of state’s party gathering in The Hague, Netherlands, this week, Human Rights Watch has issued its report on the court and its position on how to improve it. The report is available here.
Human Rights Watch identifies some key areas of concern, complementarity, for instance. Complementarity means the court functions only where national authorities cannot or will not act on crimes within the jurisdiction of the court. This is a necessary bow to the sovereignty of the state parties, but also means there will always be political disputes about what should be prosecuted in the court and what should not be.
In the situation in Uganda for example, the rebel generals have been negotiating a resolution with the government, but a key point of the negotiations is to dismiss the indictments against them in the ICC. The Ugandan government does not have this authority, but can such an agreement bind the court? Will the court act when a state party makes a deal with an indicted person to seek dismissal or to not cooperate? What if Uganda set up a truth and reconciliation commission and agreed that would substitute for prosecution, would complementarity then prevent prosecution at the ICC?
The court of course will always be inherently political. It exists at the sufferance of the states parties, if it exercises too much independence its budget will disappear as will its support, but if it does not prosecute the otherwise unpunished war crimes and crimes against humanity, there will be no public support and little international support. At some point it will have to broaden the prosecutions beyond a single corner in Africa where four countries meet.
