|
|
|
In-Depth:
Justice for a Lawless World? Rights and reconciliation in a new era of international law
|
 Download this in-depth report
Part I 6.36 MB
Part II 2.40 MB
- Professor Noam Chomsky
- ICC Chief Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo
- Samantha Power, Professor of Practice in Human Rights Policy
- Juan Mendez ,President of the International Center for Transitional Justice
- Justice Geoffrey Robertson Q.C.
- Dr Fanie du Toit, Programme Director for Educating for Reconciliation at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa
- Abdullah An-Na`im, Ph.D, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Augustin Nkusi, the Director of the Legal Support Unit, National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, Rwanda
- Benjamin Gumpert, counsel representing Justin Mugenzi, who is currently on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Hanny Megally, Director, Middle East and North Africa Program, International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
- Paul van Zyl, Country Programme Director at the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
- Johnston Busingye, Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice in Rwanda
- Dennis McNamara (Special Adviser on Internal Displacement to the UN’s Emergency Relief Co-ordinator and Director of the OCHA Inter-agency Internal Displacement Division) on the rule of law
IRIN welcomes feedback. Send your messages to feedback. |
|
GLOBAL: Interview with Chief Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo
|
Luis Moreno Ocampo is a 1978 graduate of the University of Buenos Aires Law School. He rose to prominence as the assistant prosecutor of the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons in the 1984-1985 "Military Junta" trial. It was the first prosecution of senior commanders for the mass killing of civilians since the Nuremberg Trials. Over the next few years, Ocampo established a reputation for his willingness to confront the rich and the powerful of Argentina. As well as his professional duties, he has been highly active in the anti-corruption NGO Transparency International, being the former president of its Latin America and Caribbean office and a current member of its global governing board. Ocampo was elected unopposed to the position of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor in 2003. His initial investigations have concentrated on the abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) following the formal end of the Second Congo War, the insurgency of the Uganda-based Lord's Resistance Army and the Darfur conflict of western Sudan.
QUESTION: Critics claim that due to the political process that results in any case being taken up by the ICC, its authority and autonomy is inevitably neutered by the powers that be, and the ICC effectively becomes a political tool. How would you respond to this?
ANSWER: We always fulfil our duties in respect to the law in all aspects of our work including the collection of evidence. I do not find that I am politically constrained. I have the possibility to choose cases that I feel are required. The main difference between what I do with the ICC and my work as a prosecutor in Argentina is that people have the possibility to disengage from the process of the case. In the case of Uganda for example, we cannot compel people to engage, and some people are saying they don’t want the ICC to intervene and when we do their response is to disengage. This is not a normal position for a prosecutor to face. My only comment is that this does not stop my work. My work is to stop crime. We have a legal obligation that brings us political problems because we operate politicised situations.
Q: What about the view that culturally or philosophically the ICC, and other bodies representing international justice, are expressions of 'western' values and traditions, and therefore cannot represent different cultures - in particular Islamic cultures?
A: This court has 100 states parties. Most are African and only 12 are Asian. Most countries are not from North America or Europe. Then again there are over 100 states who are not party to the ICC. No, the ICC celebrates diversity and one can find different traditions working side by side. For example, in Uganda there are five indicted who will be dealt with by the ICC, but the rest of the perpetrators will be dealt with by local remedies. Therefore, we understand and accept that this process is negotiated and diverse, so there are no contradictions in this regard.
Q: One of the main intentions of the special courts and tribunals, as well as the ICC, is to concentrate their energies prosecuting the 'big fish' accused; and to leave the medium and small fry at large. If true, how can these fora ever claim to bring justice to a people who see the majority of the perpetrators living free?
A: We work with a system of complementarity with states parties. This means it is only my job to do one or two cases, to make my contribution and then leave. The countries themselves continue the work. This doesn’t mean our work is only symbolic. In Uganda, again, as an example. Mass crimes require a massive number of perpetrators. There is no way the ICC could deal with the whole problem. We will indict five people and that is all we can do. In Argentina we faced the same problem.
Also in Nuremberg where the Germans had been so organised and had literally tons of documents that could have been used to convict many of the Nazi criminals. When I met Benjamin Ferencz, [a former Nuremberg Prosecutor] in New York I asked him why they only prosecuted 22 individuals in each trial. He said: “Well, we saw we only had 22 chairs in the chambers.” Of course this is a problem. There is no law to choose amongst criminals. Ethiopia tried to prosecute over a thousand alleged criminals from the previous regime and Rwanda is trying to prosecute many thousands. The ICC is just part of the solution, not the whole solution. But we have practical issues and have to try to maximise the impact by gathering the leaders. To stop organised crime you have to stop the leaders.
Q: What happens when in the pursuit of international justice local people accuse bodies like the ICC of exacerbating local frictions and interfering with what they regard as a domestic issue? Are there higher ideas that the ICC represents that permits the ICC to continue prosecutions despite such accusations?
A: The essential issue is to control crime. Prosecuting the main people is the only way to stop it. The Uganda example shows that we can respect the negotiations of the local people to achieve peace while continue with our case. We respect other initiatives but many war crimes and crimes against humanity are not confined to national boundaries. No nation can claim to have a monopoly of the solution because more than one country is normally affected.
Q: If the implementation of international justice involves the conviction and punishment of those guilty, how do you view the rise of truth and reconciliation initiatives that may only expose, but then pardon the perpetrators of crimes?
A: There are different ways to seek the prevention of crime. Truth and reconciliation processes can provide good information for criminal processes. We need to use all tools possible and tackle the problem from different sides. These commissions are not working in opposition to the ICC.
Q: International Justice is very costly. For example, money that is spent on the pursuit of perpetrators might be better spent on basic services for those living in poor countries. How would you answer critics who argue that the cost of convicting a handful of criminals is too high in this regard?
A: I agree that justice is not the only thing they need but the end of crime is overwhelmingly needed by any country as a foundation. We are also trying to keep our justice cost-efficient and effective.
Q: The ICC and other courts pursue justice after the event. To what extent do some world powers rely on these bodies to salvage their consciences in place of the much more complicated task of intervening in situations while atrocities are actually being committed - for example in Sudan and Uganda today?
A: Yes, and let’s not forget the lack of intervention in Rwanda [in 1994]. This world is made up of nation states that are established within the notion of sovereignty. It’s a very big and complex decision for one nation to send troops into another country. Even the idea of the ICC is a threat to national sovereignty for so many countries. Of course I hope nation states can do more to intervene when crimes are being committed but in the meantime my job is to focus on the questions of justice.
Q: Despite the previous antagonism from the US, do their recent concessions concerning Sudan suggest that we may see a future softening and even compliance from the US in relation to ICC?
A: There are more than a hundred that are not party to the ICC. The United States is one of those and I cannot comment on any aspect of one state’s decision not to be engaged with the ICC. All I can say on this is that if we do our job properly and people see that we are stopping crime, I believe more and more countries will join the ICC.
Q: Is international justice a flash in the historic pan or is it here to stay? If it is here to stay, please speculate what shape it might take in the coming decades?
A: The world is a complicated place but it is also evolving. Punishing crimes against humanity is not an easy task, but after only two and a half years of existence we are already showing that it is working. I feel it is developing very well. We need to have this idea of world justice. If we have global communications and global business, we also need global justice. Ultimately, I am optimistic.
[ENDS]
|
|
|
|
|