I guess Ugandans are saying that Museveni and his Tutsi Generals are the law and the Law is the same Museveni and his Tutsi Generals. For now it looks that. Anyway, on a wider aspect if anyone is not happy with ICC, let him/her be aware that there is a Review Conference of the International Criminal Court Statute that took place sometime after July, 2009 to consider amendments to the treaty that founded the International Criminal Court. This can only mean the Court is going to be there and it will only get better to put those bent to impunity into the dock.. The Review Conference will only get ICC to a better form if members of the Assembly of States Parties put their contributions positively. The NRMO or Museveni supporters who are apprehensive of the ICC should reconsider fully embracing it after all Uganda is already a member of the Assembly of States of ICC and next year Uganda shall be hosting ICC in Kampala. This was decided at the seventh session of the Assembly of States Parties in November 2008. The Assembly decided that the Review Conference of the Rome Statute shall be held in Kampala, Uganda, during the first semester of 2010. Just to add onto that, this Court is governed by the Assembly of States Parties and Uganda is one of the parties. The Assembly of States Parties is the Court’s management oversight and legislative body and it consists of one representative from each state party. Each state party has one vote and every effort has to be made to reach decisions by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by vote. This is how the Court manages its four organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry. One Ugandan called Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba wanted to know the appeal procedures. This can be found in the Judicial Divisions of the Court. The Judicial Divisions consist of the 18 judges of the Court, organized into three divisions — the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division and Appeals Division — which carry out the judicial functions of the Court. These Judges are elected to the Court by the Assembly of States Parties. They serve nine-year terms and are not generally eligible for re-election. All judges must be nationals of states parties to the Rome Statute, and no two judges may be nationals of the same state. They must be “persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices” The Prosecutor or any person being investigated or prosecuted may request the disqualification of a judge from “any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground”. Any request for the disqualification of a judge from a particular case is decided by an absolute majority of the other judges. A judge may be removed from office if he or she “is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties” or is unable to exercise his or her functions. The removal of a judge requires both a two-thirds majority of the other judges and a two-thirds majority of the states parties.. Let us get another point clear too. ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system. It is legally and functionally independent from any body including the United Nations. However, the Rome Statute grants certain powers to the United Nations Security Council under Article 13 of ICC. This Article allows the Security Council to refer to the Court situations that would not otherwise fall under the Court’s jurisdiction (as it did in relation to the situation in Darfur, which the Court could not otherwise have prosecuted as Sudan is not a state party). Article 16 of ICC allows the Security Council to require the Court to defer from investigating a case for a period of 12 months. Such a deferral may be renewed indefinitely by the Security Council. During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, when deciding on its jurisdiction, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise Universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States. A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under limited circumstances: where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person’s state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council The Court cooperates with the UN in many different areas, including the exchange of information and logistical support. The Court reports to the UN each year on its activities, and some meetings of the Assembly of States Parties are held at UN facilities. The relationship between the Court and the UN is governed by a “Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations”. The Court is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed as it has been stated clearly by Abbey. It ought to be there to deter or prevent impunity where they occur. The issue of whether President Bush or Israel President are left of the hook is a matter of politics. The law is there and it is sending a clear message to these leaders with some tangible influence being realised though slowly. Even the recently invasion of Gaza by Israel is in the process. The only biggest downfalls at the moment are its power of arresting, prosecuting and enforcing its judgement. It has no police. It relies on the member states and that is why it may not be ast to drag Bush to the Hagues or for that matter Museveni or Kony! As of February 2009, 108 countries have joined the Court, including nearly all of Europe and South America, and roughly half the countries in Africa. However, ICC in its current state has got some shortfall but it is a baby and it has all the good reasons behind its formation. It should be supported and developed to offer alternative justice to those who would otherwise not get any. We already have a world court, ICJ, but it only deals with cases between states. And this is what those who are committing impunity wants to hide behind. They want to dangles States immunity before your eyes will impunity continues unabated. But ICC is meant to crack through the veils and that is what they done like. Also remember ICJ was established in 1945 by the UN Charter and the Court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Justice similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court. But ICJ has dealt with relatively few cases only in its history, and there has clearly been an increased willingness to use the Court since the 1980s, especially among developing countries. As usual the stumbling block has been the United States. In 1986 United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ and so it now accepts the court’s jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis. But the irony about this is that in 1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals when the United States was then leading the show, the United Nations General Assembly recognised the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities of the kind committed during World War II and the USA supported it then. Since 1948 not a lot happen due to all sorts of thing including Cod War era. But in 1989. A N R Robinson, then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, proposed the creation of a permanent international court to deal with the illegal drug trade and the idea was revived. Not a lot happened until 1995 when some small group of NGOs founded a Coalition that coordinated their work to ensure the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Since then, the Coalition’s membership has increased exponentially as its original goal of establishing the ICC grew to a Coalition for the International Criminal Court that includes over 2500 organizations around the world working in partnership to strengthen international cooperation with the ICC; to ensure that the Court is fair, effective and independent; to make justice both visible and universal; and advance stronger national laws that deliver justice to victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. As of February 2009, 108 countries have joined the Court, including nearly all of Europe and South America, and roughly half the countries in Africa. However, these countries only account for a minority of the world’s population. A further 40 states have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute; the law of treaties obliges these states to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty.. Charles Eliba UPC Activist/Lawyer source: ugandansatheart.org/2009/02/26/let-ugandans-compile-evidence-against-their-leaders-for-icc/
Posted on: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:49:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015