The definitions of international crimes in the Al Bashir arrest warrant decision

Journal of International Criminal Justice

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 283-296

  Cryer, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67651165488     PISSN: 14781387     EISSN: 14781395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqp029     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (104)

1. Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the Secretary-General Persuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of 18 September 2004, UN Doc. S/2005/60, 1 February 2005 [hereinafter 'Commission Report'].
2. See generally R. Cryer, 'Sudan, Resolution 1593 and International Criminal Justice', 19 Leiden Journal of International Law (2006) 195-222.
3. Office of the Prosecutor, 'Annex A: Public Document - Public Redacted Version of the Prosecutor's Application under Article 58', regarding the situation in Darfur, ICC-02/05-157-AnxA, available at http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/ICC-02-05-157-An_stA-ENG.pdf (visited 14 July 2008) [hereinafter 'Prosecutor's Application'].
4. ICC, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest Against Omar al-Bashir, Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber 1, 4 March 2009 [hereinafter Al Bashir 'Decision']. Judge Ušacka dissented on the refusal to issue the arrest warrant on the genocide counts.
5. On the theory of liability used, see Harmen van denWilt's contribution to this issue. It ought also to be noted that the question of the level of proof of facts which was applied at this point in proceedings lies outside the scope of this piece, although it was by no means uncontroversial, see infra note 77.
6. M. Bedjaoui, 'Expediency in the Decisions of the International Court of Justice', 71 British Year Book of International Law (2000) 1-28, 17-18.
7. Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §56.
8. Ibid., §53. They did this with respect to all of the offences.
9. Ibid., §59, citing Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, Lubanga (ICC-01/-4-01/06-803), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 29 January 2007 [hereinafter 'Lubanga'], §§ 233-234.
10. Decision on Confirmation of Charges, Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-1/07), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 30 September 2008 [hereinafter 'Katanga'].
11. Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §60.
12. See S. Sivakumaran, 'Identifying an Armed Conflict Not of an International Character', in G. Sluiter and C. Stahn (eds), The Emerging Practice of the International Criminal Court (The Hague: Brill, 2008) 363, 371-372.
13. Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Tadić (IT-94-1-AR72), 2 October 1995, §70.
14. See Judgment on Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, Milošević (IT-02-54-T), Trial Chamber, 16 June 2004 (hereinafter ' Milošević), §20.
15. There is a useful summary in: Judgment. Haradinaj, Balaj and Brahimaj (IT-04-84-T), Trial Chamber, 3 April 2008, §§ 50-60.
16. Although the SCSL has used the Additional Protocol II test (for example in the RUF case), this was because the Prosecutor had charged offences that were based on violations of that treaty, and the Chamber accepted that a conflict fulfilling the requirements for Additional Protocol II would automatically fulfil the lower requirements of the customary test for the applicability of the customary law of non-international armed conflict (§§ 94-96).
17. Milošević, supra note 13, §36.
18. Although on the facts of the case, they took the view that there was some territorial control: Ibid.
19. Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §64.
20. A similar view to that suggested here was taken by the Trial Chamber in Judgment, Boškoski and Tarčulovski (IT-04-92-T), 10 July 2008, §198, which expressly notes that the test in the Rome Statute is not that in Additional Protocol II.
21. Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §70.
22. Ibid., §§ 72-78.
23. Ibid., §81.
24. The main citation provided in the ICC decisions is to the Appeals Chamber Judgment in Kordić and Čerkez (IT-95-14/2-A), 17 December 2004.
25. The first time the Appeals Chamber used such language was in fact in its Judgment in Kunarac, Kovač and Vukovicć (IT-96-23/1-A), 12 June 2002, §94. Interestingly, the Prosecutor's Application uses Kordić as authority.
26. Including the definition of 'attack' given in Art. 7(2)(a): Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §82.
27. Ibid., §83.
28. Ibid., §§ 84-85.
29. Although in doing so, they side-stepped the issue of what is required as a result of the definition of an attack on the civilian population provided for in Art. 7(2) ICCSt.
30. Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §87.
31. Ibid., §88.
32. Ibid., §§ 94 (murder), 97(extermination), 100 (forcible transfer), 104 (torture), 108 (rape).
33. The Chamber did also mention that, consistent with the Elements of Crimes and ICTY/ICTR jurisprudence, extermination requires that the killings take place as part of mass killing (Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §96), but this is hardly controversial.
34. Ibid., §92.
35. See, e.g. R. Cryer, H. Friman, D. Robinson and E.Wilmhurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 192-194.
36. Judgment, Martić (IT-95-11-A), Appeals Chamber, 8 October 2008, §313.
37. See, inter alia, Art. 8(2)(b)(xix) ICCSt.
38. See, e.g. J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary Humanitarian Law: Vol. I: Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 19-24
39. M.N. Schmitt, 'The Law of Targeting', in E.Wilmshurst and S. Beau (eds), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 131, 141-141.
40. Although for some clarification see Judgment, Strugar (IT-01-42-A), Appeals Chamber, 18 July 2008, §§ 174-177.
41. The usual definition is that protection for civilians exists 'unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities' (e.g. Additional Protocol I, Art. 51(3), Additional Protocol II, Art. 13(3)).
42. The ICRC considers this customary: Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 33, at 19-21.
43. The link between crimes against humanity (committed during armed conflicts) and humanitarian law is closer than the ICTY sometimes thinks, see P. Akhavan, 'Reconciling Crimes against Humanity with the Laws of War: Human Rights, Armed Conflict and the Limits of Progressive Jurisprudence', 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice (JICJ) (2008) 21.
44. See, e.g. G.P. Fletcher and J.D. Ohlin, 'Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case', 3 JICJ (2005) 539
45. C. Kreß, 'The Darfur Report and Genocidal Intent', 3 JICJ (2005) 562
46. W. Schabas, 'Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, and Darfur: The Commission of Inquiry's Findings on Genocide', 27 Cardozo Law Review (2005-2006) 1703
47. D. Luban, 'Calling Genocide by Its Rightful Name: Lemkin's Word, Darfur, and the UN Report', 7 Chicago Journal of International Law (2006-2007) 303.
48. Commission Report, supra note 1, §§ 520, 518.
49. Prosecutor's Application, supra note 3, §§ 76-400.
50. See, e.g. A. de Waal, 'A Critique of the Public Application by the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC for an Arrest Warrant against Sudanese President Omar al Bashir', Making Sense of Darfur, available at http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/darfur/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ bashir-public-application-critique-d6-250109.pdf (visited 18 March 2009).
51. O. Triffterer, 'Genocide, Its Particular Intent to Destroy inWhole or in Part the Group as Such', 14 Leiden Journal of International Law (2001) 399
52. G.Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 204-205.
53. W. Schabas, 'State Policy as an Element of International Crimes', 98 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (2008) 953, 967.
54. Judgment, Krstić (IT-98-33-A), Appeals Chamber, 19 April 2004, §224.
55. See generally R. Cryer, 'Elements of Crimes', in A. Cassese et al. (eds), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 308, 308-309.
56. Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §126.
57. Ibid., §131.
58. I am grateful to Darryl Robinson for this point.
59. Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §§ 127-128.
60. Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ušacka (hereinafter 'Ušacka'), §17.
61. E. Gadriov and R.S. Clark, 'Article 9', in O. Triffterer (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2nd edn., Oxford: Hart, 2008) 505, at 524-525.
62. Majority, Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §129.
63. K.J. Heller, 'The Majority's Problematic Interpretation of Genocide's Contextual Element', Opinio Juris, 6 March 2009, available at http://opiniojuris.org/2009/03/06/the-majoritys-problematic- interpretation-of-genocides-contextual-element/ (visited 18 March 2009).
64. Partially Dissenting Opinion, Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §19.
65. Majority, Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §§ 149-151.
66. Schabas, supra note 41, at 967, argues that the element, in spite of not using the term'policy', nevertheless imports such an element, as 'any difference between the two seems semantic'. If this means there has to be a policy of engaging in the relevant conduct, this is understandable. However, if it means that there must be a genocidal policy, it is not.
67. V. Oosterveld, 'Context of Genocide', in R.S. Lee et al. (eds), The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Ardsley: Transnational, 2001), 44, at 47-48.
68. See, e.g. H.Vest, 'A Structure-Based Concept of Genocidal Intent', 5 JICJ (2007) 781.
69. Commission Report, supra note 1, §508.
70. See W. Schabas, 'Darfur and the "Odious Scourge": The Darfur Commission of Inquiry's Findings on Genocide', 18 Leiden Journal of International Law (2005) 871, 877-880.
71. Ibid.
72. Majority, Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §135.
73. Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ, Judgment of 26 February 2007 [hereinafter Bosnian Genocide], §§ 191-194.
74. Although it might be asked what, precisely, this means or implies.
75. Majority, Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, §136.
76. Ibid., §137.
77. Ibid., fn 152.
78. Prosecutor's Application, supra note 3, §77.
79. Ušacka, supra note 47, §23.
80. Ibid., 24-26.
81. The majority determined, in accordance with ICJ and ICTY jurisprudence, that the part of the group intended to be destroyed has to be 'substantial', that the criterion was qualitative as well as quantitative and referred to the 'area of the perpetrators activity' was relevant: Majority, Al Bashir Decision, supra note 4, § 146.
82. Ibid., §139.
83. See also §140.
84. Ibid., §§ 141-142.
85. Ibid., §143.
86. Ibid., §144.
87. Ušacka, supra note 47, §56.
88. Ibid., §57.
89. Ibid., §§ 60-61.
90. Judgment, Blagojević and Jokić (IT-02-60-A), Appeals Chamber, 19 May 2007, §123.
91. 'The Appeals Chamber is not convinced by the Trial Chamber's reasoning that the forcible transfer operation alone or coupled with the murders and mistreatment in Bratunac town would suffice to demonstrate the principal perpetrators' intent to "destroy" the protected group.' (Footnote 337 reads 'The Trial Chamber's conclusion to the contrary may have been based on a view that in removing a group from a particular location, the removers are "destroying" the group. See Trial Judgement, §§ 657-666. The Appeals Chamber emphasizes, however, that displacement is not equivalent to destruction.')
92. Both of which lie beyond the scope of these comments.
93. The Prosecutor has reason to appeal on the basis that the majority inappropriately applied a standard closer to 'beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to the standard required by Article 58, that there is reason to believe': See M. Milanović, 'ICC Issues Arrest Warrant for Bashir', EJIL: Talk!, at http://www.ejiltak.org/ icc-issues-arrest-warrant-for-bashir-but-rejects-the-genocide-charge/ #more-689 (visited 18 March 2009)
94. K.J. Heller, 'The Majority's Complete Misunderstanding of "Reasonable Grounds"', Opinio Juris, 5 March 2009, available at http://opiniojuris.org/2009/03/05/ the-majoritys-complete-misunderstanding-of-reasonablegrounds/ (visited 18 March 2009).
95. See e.g. D. Terris, C.P.R. Romano and L. Stewart, The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 207.
96. G. Schwarzenberger, International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals: Vol. I (3rd edn., London: Stevens, 1957), 32.
97. Nuremberg IMT, 'Judgment and Sentence', 41 American Journal of International Law (1947) 172.
98. Tadić, supra note 13.
99. See J.E. Alvarez,'Nuremberg Revisited: The Tadić Case', 7 European Journal of International Law (1996) 245.
100. M. Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006.
101. Ibid., e.g. §§ 244-245.
102. For a careful overview see R. Higgins, 'A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench', 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2006) 791.
103. The Prosecutor has sought leave to appeal certain aspects, albeit not those related to war crimes or crimes against humanity, see Prosecution's Application for Leave to Appeal the 'Decision on the Prosecution's Application for aWarrant of Arrest on Against Omar Hassan al Bashir', Al Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 10 March 2009.
104. Some doubt if, in the absence of express provision for an appeal in the Rome Statute, there can be an appeal here, see W. Schabas, 'An Unappealing Appeal', PhD Studies in Human Rights, a weblog of the Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway,14 March 2009, available at http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com/2009/ 03/unappealing-appeal.html (visited 18 March 2009).