Gaza / Israel: International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor reiterates urgency of issuing arrest warrants / Gaza / Israel: Fiscal de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI) reitera urgencia de emitir órdenes de arresto
Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of Public International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Costa Rica (UCR) / Nicolas Boeglin, Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR)
In a document submitted on 23 August to the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the ICC Prosecutor has reiterated his request for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders (its Prime Minister and Defence Minister) and Hamas leaders.
En un documento remitido el 23 de agosto a la Sala de lo Preliminar de la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI), el Fiscal de la CPI ha reiterado su solicitud de órdenes de arresto contra dirigentes israelíes (su Primer Minsitro y su Ministro de Defensa) y contra líderes del Hamás.
A) Prosecutor Office ´s conclusions in brief / Las conclusiones del Fiscal en breve
In a lengthy 49-page document (see full text), the ICC Prosecutor rejects a number of views submitted by some States and entities to the ICC on alleged limitations on the ICC arising from the Oslo Accords:
En un extenso documento de 49 páginas (véase texto completo), el Fiscal de la CPI rechaza varias opiniones enviadas por algunos Estados y entidades a la CPI sobre supuestas limitaciones que derivan para la CPI de los acuerdos de Oslo:
"51. Certain interveners argue that the Oslo Accords bar the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over international crimes committed on the territory of the State of Palestine by Israeli nationals. This argument is without merit. First, it is inconsistent with the Statute when interpreted in accordance with ordinary modes of treaty interpretation under international law and the Court’s consistent jurisprudence, and wrongly seeks to treat the State of Palestine differently from every other State Party. Second, the argument that the Oslo Accords bar jurisdiction is premised on a misunderstanding of foundational concepts of jurisdiction under international law, including under the law of occupation, as well as their implications for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under the Statute".
And ICC Prosecutor concludes that / Y el Fiscal de la CPI concluye que:
"113. In addition to being manifestly out of time, Israel’s letter neither mentions article 18 nor satisfies the legal requirements of a deferral request under article 18. Merely asserting the capacity of the Israeli justice system and that some investigations are ongoing is not sufficient. The requesting State bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that its proceedings sufficiently mirror the scope of the Prosecution’s intended investigation. It must provide information of a sufficient degree of specificity and probative value to demonstrate an advancing process of relevant domestic investigations or prosecutions, including patterns of criminality and high-ranking officials. Israel did not provide any such material that would meet this burden. Nor, as outlined above, does any such information appear to exist.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
114. The Prosecution respectfully requests the Pre-Trial Chamber to:
• dismiss in limine the observations unrelated to the Oslo Accords; and
• urgently render its decisions under article 58, on the basis of the Prosecution’s Applications, these submissions, and the Article 19(3) Decision".
In the opening part of his opinion and in the final paragraphs, it is stated that: / En la parte inicial de su opinión así como en la parte final, se lee que:
" 8. (...) As the Prosecution has concluded, and as is evident from the public record, there are no domestic proceedings at present which deal with substantially the same conduct and the same persons as the cases presented to the Chamber pursuant to article 58 of the Statute. There is no information indicating that Benjamin NETANYAHU or Yoav GALLANT, Israel’s Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, respectively, are being criminally investigated or prosecuted, and indeed the core allegations against them have simply been rejected by Israeli authorities".
"93. In any case, and additionally, the available information does not show that Israel is investigating substantially the same conduct as the ICC. For instance, the information available does not suggest that the above inquiries relate to the conduct underlying the war crime of starvation and/or related crimes. Likewise, the available information does not suggest any inquiry into patterns of criminality, or the potential responsibility of high-ranking officials, which may among other considerations signify the investigation of contextual elements of crimes against humanity. Indeed, significantly, on 28 May 2024 the MAG categorically rejected the commission of these crimes without any indication or implication that such conclusions resulted from a full and rigorous investigation, or indeed any investigation at all".
Elsewhere in his opinion, it is stated that for the ICC Prosecutor, the time that has elapsed since he requested the arrest warrants has had a dramatic effect on the civilian population in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt): / En otra parte de su escrito, se indica que para el Fiscal de la CPI, el tiempo que ha transcurrido desde que solicitó las órdenes de arresto ha tenido un efecto dramático en la poblñción civil en el territorio ocupado palestino (oPT):
"11. The situation in the oPt, including Gaza, is catastrophic, owing in large part to the ongoing criminality described in the Applications. As anticipated by article 58(1)(b)(iii) of the Statute, the arrest of the persons named in the Applications appears necessary “to prevent [them] from continuing with the commission of that crime or a related crime which is within the jurisdiction of the Court and which arises out of the same circumstances.” This is manifestly evident in this situation where victims are “struggling with death, hunger and disease”. The issuance of the requested arrest warrants could avert further harm to the victims who remain in Gaza and to those who were forced to leave but continue to suffer physical and mental harm. The ICJ has already addressed the situation in the oPt on four separate occasions during 2024, and it is now for the Court to ensure that there is no delay in the pursuit of criminal accountability in the Situation in the State of Palestine".
B) Brief procedural context / Breve contexto procesal
The deadline for the receipt of legal opinions has thus come to an end, and the Pre-Trial Chamber must now take a final decision on the request for arrest that it received on 20 May 2024 from the ICC Prosecutor himself.
This additional time period is due to an initial delaying manoeuvre by the United Kingdom, which opened a waiting period for ICC judges to receive a variety of legal opinions from States, international organisations, NGOs and academics.
De esta manera el plazo para la recepción de opiniones legales llega a su fin, debiendo ahora la Sala de lo Preliminar tomar una decisión definitiva sobre la solicitud de arresto que recibió el 20 de mayo del 2024 por parte del mismo Fiscal de la CPI.
Este plazo adicional de tiempo se debe a una maniobra inicial del Reino Unido de carácter dilatorio, que abrió un compás de espera para que los jueces de la CPI recibieran opiniones jurídicas variadas enviadas por Estados, organizaciones internacionales, ONGs y académicos.
With regard to Latin America, we have had the opportunity to refer to the legal opinions sent by Latin American States to the ICC in a previous article published on 6 August 2024, in Spanish, entitled "Latin America in the face of the drama in Gaza: on the observations sent by Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico to the International Criminal Court (ICC)".
Con relación a América Latina, habíamos tenido la oportunidad de referir a las opiniones jurídicas enviadas por Estados de América Latina a la CPI en una nota anterior editada el 6 de agosto del 2024, y titulada "América Latina ante el drama en Gaza: a propósito de las observaciones enviadas por Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Colombia y México a la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI)".
Colombia's submission to the ICC was preceded by those of Spain (see document), Ireland (see document), as well as Norway, submitted on 5 August (see full document), which move in the same direction, as well as by Palestine (see document).
Israel, for its part, chose not to submit any written opinion to the ICC.
Israel por su parte optó por no remitir ninguna opinión escrita a la CPI.
It is also worth mentioning the legal opinion sent to the ICC by the 30 UN human rights experts who sent a joint opinion to the ICC judges (see document, whose full reading and re-reading is recommended), and who conclude by stating emphatically that:
También cabe mencionar la opinión jurídica remitda a la CPI por los 30 expertos de derechos humanos de Naciones Unidas que enviaron una opinión conjunta a los jueces de la CPI (véase documento, cuya lectura completa y relectura se recomiendan), y que concluyen señalando de manera enfática que:
"23. The Mandate Holders recognize the Court’s role in ensuring international justice as a critical component of preserving international order through the protection of the interests of victims of international crimes. People around the world, especially youth, advocating for the application of international law, are watching closely, hoping the promises of international peace are not devoid of meaning.
24. In light of the expert opinions shared in this document, the Mandate Holders urge the Court not to further delay the delivery of justice in the occupied Palestinian territory, through the prosecution of alleged criminals. The significant effects of this failure would be felt far beyond the tormented land of Palestine".
C) The particular case of United States / El caso particular de Estados Unidos
Invoking an alleged limitation to the ICC's jurisdiction, Israel has been able to rely on a document issued by the United States (see document ): paragraphs 16-26 of its brief constitute an attempt - rather crude - to discredit the ICC Prosecutor's application on the basis of an interpretation of the provisions of the Rome Statute to which the United States... is not a State Party.
Alegando una supuesta limitación a la jurisdicción de la CPI, Israel ha podido contar con un documento remitido por Estados Unidos (véase documento): los párrafos 16-26 de su escrito constituyen un intento - bastante burdo - para desacreditar la solicitud del Fiscal de la CPI con base en una interpretación de las disposiciones del Estatuto de Roma al que Estados Unidos... no es Estado Parte.
D) ICC and Israel: a close suveillance / CPI e Israel: una vigilancia extrema
Note that in May 2024 a group of journalists in Israel unveiled a specific eavesdropping and interception programme of the Israeli intelligence services dedicated solely to ICC staff and the content of their computers: the article entitled ‘Surveillance and interference: Israel covert war on the ICC exposed’ published by Magazine+972 on 28 May 2024 is a highly recommended reading, in which one can learn how for almost 10 years Israel has been constantly surveilling the ICC and its staff. Among other details, it reads that:
Nótese que en mayo del 2024 un grupo de periodistas en Israel dieron a conocer un programa específico de escuchas e intercepción de los servicios de inteligencia israelíes dedicado únicamente al personal de la CPI y al contenido de sus computadoras: el artículo titulado "Surveillance and interference: Israel covert war on the ICC exposed" publicado por el medio Magazine+972 el 28 de mayo del 2024 constituye un reportage de lectura muy recomendada, en el que se puede saber cómo desde casi 10 años Israel ha estado vigilando constantemente a la CPI y a su personal. Entre otros detalles, se lee que:
"The former prosecutor was far from the only target. Dozens of other international officials related to the probe were similarly surveilled. One of the sources said there was a large whiteboard with the names of around 60 people who were under surveillance — half of them Palestinians and half from other countries, including UN officials and ICC personnel in The Hague".
It is also indicated that for each case brought to the attention of the ICC ‘intercepted’, Israel prepared detailed information in order to assert its own internal investigations carried out, all in order to be able to invoke the principle of complementarity before the ICC Prosecutor and judges:
También se indica que por cada caso llevado a conocimiento de la CPI "interceptado", Israel preparaba información detallada en aras de hacer valer sus propias investigaciones internas llevadas a cabo, todo ello en aras de poder invocar ante el Fiscal y los jueces de la CPI el principio de complementaridad:
"If materials were transferred to the ICC, it had to be understood exactly what they were, to ensure that the IDF investigated them independently and sufficiently so that they could claim complementarity,” one of the sources explained. “The claim of complementarity was very, very significant”.
In the face of general reprobation and lack of transparency from the Dutch authorities themselves (see Guardian article of 31 May 2024 reporting on an initiative by a legislator), the Dutch authorities finally summoned the Israeli representatives in the Dutch capital to ask them for clarification and to express their deep indignation at such an action (see Guardian article of 24 June 2024): this Israeli eavesdropping and interception programme violates the most elementary rules protecting international organisations and their officials, which are in force in the international legal order.
Despite the seriousness of the revelations made from Israel by extremely well-informed Israeli journalists, the time taken by the Dutch authorities to proceed to summon Israel's diplomats is evidence of some kind of resistance within Dutch state apparatus. This is the same group of Israeli investigative journalists who revealed to the world the existence of the artificial intelligence programme ‘Lavender’ by means of which Israel chooses the people it eliminates in Gaza (see article published on 3 April 2024 in the online magazine Magazine +972, entitled ‘’Lavender‘: The AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza’).
Ante la reprobación general y la falta de transparencia de las mismas autoridades de los Países Bajos (véase nota de The Guardian del 31 de mayo del 2024 informando de una iniciativa de un legislador), finalmente, las autoridades de los Países Bajos convocaron a los representantes de Israel en la capital holandesa para solicitarles aclaraciones y manifestarles su profunda indignación ante semejante actuar (véase nota de The Guardian, del 24 de junio del 2024): este programa de escuchas e intercepciones isarelí viola las reglas más elementales que protegen a las organizaciones internacionales y a sus funcionarios, vigentes en el ordenamiento jurídico internacional.
Pese a la gravedad de las revelaciones hechas desde Israel por periodistas israelíes extremadamente bien informados, el tiempo tomado por las autoridades de los Países Bajos para proceder a convocar a los diplomáticos de Israel evidencia algun tipo de resistencia en el seno de su aparato estatal. Se trata del mismo grupo de periodistas de investigación israelíes que dieron a conocer al mundo la existencia del programa de inteligencia artificial "Lavender" mediante el cual Israel procede a escoger a las personas que elimina en Gaza (véase artículo publicado el 3 de abril del 2024 en el medio digital Magazine +972, titulado " ‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza").
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario