View previous stories
	Set universal standards for interviewing detainees without coercion by Juan E. Méndez Special Rapporteur on torture   The United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, this week advocated for the development of a universal set of standards for non-coercive interviewing methods and procedural safeguards, aiming to ensure that no person is subjected to torture, ill-treatment or coercion.   “Persons interviewed by authorities during criminal or other investigations may be confronted with the entire repressive machinery of society,” the UN Human Rights expert stated in presenting his latest report* to the UN General Assembly, adding that “questioning, particularly of suspects, is inherently associated with risks of intimidation, coercion, and mistreatment.”   “But scientific data and irrefutable evidence from the criminal justice system demonstrate that coercive methods of questioning, even when not amounting to torture, produce unreliable information and false confessions, and are indeed counterproductive for public safety,” Mr. Méndez said.   “Moreover, torture, ill-treatment, and coercion have devastating long-term consequences on individuals, institutions, and society as a whole. Ultimately, torture only breeds more crime by fuelling hatred and a desire for vengeance,” he stated.   “My report seeks to promote the development of standards and guidelines on non-coercive interview methods and other procedural safeguards, that ought, as a matter of law and policy, to be applied at a minimum to all interviews by law enforcement officials, military and intelligence personnel, and other bodies with investigative mandates,” the Special Rapporteur said.   The expert called on States to spearhead the development of such a universal protocol by convening a broad public consultation to set the parameters for the collaboration by relevant stakeholders, and urges States to adopt elements overviewed in his report.   “The protocol must design a model that promotes effective, ethical, and non-coercive interviewing and is centered on the principles of presumption of innocence and the pursuit of truth,” Mr. Méndez said. “In this way, States will not only enhance the degree to which their interviewing methods comply with human rights standards, but also their effectiveness in solving crime and keeping societies safe.”   http://bit.ly/2n3p4XD http://antitorture.org/latest-news/#Professor-Mendez-Service http://www.atlas-of-torture.org/ http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CAT/pages/catindex.aspx Visit the related web page
	The international criminal court is vital to our fight against impunity in Africa by Africa Group for Justice & Accountability   17 July 2016   The ICC may not be perfect, but never before has so much been done on the African continent to achieve accountability for the gravest crimes.   In popular accounts, Africa and the international criminal court are pitted against each other. The ICC is derided as being “biased” against Africa, ignorant of the attitudes and desires of Africans, even neocolonial.   In reality, the relationship suffers from misinformation and misunderstandings. Many parties share responsibility for this. Some African leaders have, on occasion, decried the ICC in order to protect themselves from the court’s scrutiny.   Equally, the ICC has not been able to communicate its message effectively on the continent, leaving it susceptible to misrepresentation by those who seek to undermine the institution.   Some insist that the ICC has no place in Africa and that African states must withdraw from the court because the institution has intervened primarily in African conflicts, while situations outside the continent are not investigated. However, it makes little sense to suggest that because justice cannot be served everywhere, justice should not be served anywhere. Such an attitude insults victims and survivors alike.   Why has the ICC focused its investigations almost exclusively on Africa? Well, can anyone argue that the situations in Africa where the court has opened official investigations – northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Darfur, Sudan, Kenya, Libya, Ivory Coast and Mali – are not deserving of an ICC intervention?   In all these situations, local justice systems were either unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute themselves. For the most part, the relevant governments invited the court and cooperated with its officials. In other cases, African member states of the security council voted in favour of referring the situations to the ICC.   Why has the ICC not intervened elsewhere and, especially, in powerful states? The court is severely limited in its reach. While there have been recent calls for the ICC to act in Syria and North Korea, its jurisdiction prohibits it from doing so. Our group has consistently advocated universal ratification of the Rome statute to ensure justice and accountability around the world.   It is important to note that the ICC has now opened an investigation into the 2008 war between Georgia and Russia, the latter of which is a permanent member of the security council. The court also continues to examine allegations of international crimes on other continents, including claims of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques by US officials in Afghanistan and war crimes by British troops in Iraq.   Some argue that the kind of retributive justice offered by the ICC is inappropriate in Africa. Some even suggest criminal punishment may perpetuate conflict. In reality, burying grievances and injustices fuels unrest. Impunity for powerful perpetrators of mass atrocities risks undermining long-term stability and development.   Of course, no single approach to justice is sufficient. African communities can and should have a say in what types of mechanisms are most appropriate. But the ICC does not present itself as a magic bullet for peace or justice. It can only prosecute those most responsible for mass atrocities. Moreover, it has shown itself to be increasingly sensitive to the voices and desires of African constituencies.   In northern Uganda, many citizens have made it clear they do not want Lord’s Resistance Army combatants to be prosecuted. Instead, they want them to be integrated into their communities following a process of traditional justice. So the ICC’s chief prosecutor has assured LRA combatants that the court is only prosecuting Joseph Kony and Dominic Ongwen and has encouraged fighters to defect.   Never before has so much been done on the African continent to achieve accountability for international crimes. We welcome the trial of Hissène Habré in Senegal, Central African Republic’s plan to set up a special criminal court, South Sudan’s proposed hybrid tribunal, and the expansion of the jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to include international crimes.   While none is perfect in itself, these and other recent developments point to a continent with the potential to take a leadership role in international criminal justice, if its leaders keep their pledges.   These are also opportunities for us and the international community to share expertise and engage in respectful and context-specific judicial capacity-building projects.   The ICC must listen to constructive criticism. Many say the court is too close to the security council, whose three most powerful members – Russia, China and the US – are not parties to the Rome statute. The ICC prosecutor is not bound to accept security council referrals automatically and will independently ensure that the necessary legal requirements of the Rome statute are met, but it is difficult to accept that referrals for the worst crimes known to mankind can be made with caveats that exclude a number of potential players in those conflicts from the ICC’s jurisdictional reach.   The ICC must do a better job of responding to overt attempts to politicise its mandate. It must not only do justice, but be seen to be doing justice by being more effective, robust and responsive.   African states are friends of the ICC. African states have continued to refer situations to the ICC. Africans hold the most senior positions in the court. African states fund the institution.   Many African officials and diplomats say they have no intention of leaving the Rome statute system. We call on these governments to speak loudly and courageously in the fight against impunity – both in Africa and beyond.   * The Africa Group for Justice and Accountability is an independent group of African experts from diverse backgrounds. The members are Dapo Akande, Femi Falana, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Richard Goldstone, Tiyanjana Maluwa, Athaliah Molokomme, Betty Murungi, Mohamed Chande Othman, Navi Pillay, Catherine Samba-Panza, Fatiha Serour and Abdul Tejan-Cole.   http://www.wayamo.com/africa-group-for-justice-and-accountability/   17 July 2016   ICC President Judge Silvia Fernández Statement on the occasion of 17 July, International Criminal Justice Day   18 years ago, the world took a huge step forward in committing to bring to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. On 17 July 1998, nations worldwide adopted an international treaty, the Rome Statute, for the creation of the International Criminal Court.   In the years since, the ICC has grown into a robust judicial institution. Convictions have been handed down for the use of child soldiers, murder, sexual violence. The Court has ensured the participation of thirteen thousand victims in its cases. The Office of the Prosecutor has opened investigations in 10 situations and is analysing many other conflicts on different continents. More than one-hundred and eighty thousand victims have benefited from the assistance programmes of the ICC''s Trust Fund for Victims.   But atrocious crimes still occur. Much more work is needed. Therefore, this 17 July, on the anniversary of the Rome Statute and International Criminal Justice Day, we call again for solidarity in working to make justice effective and ensure that these crimes do not go unpunished.   We need global support from states yet to ratify the Rome Statute, from states that have ratified, as well as from all those who stand against injustice.   The ICC does not have a police force of its own and relies entirely on the cooperation of states and organisations to investigate and prosecute perpetrators and to ensure access of victims to justice.. The ICC needs specific and concrete forms of cooperation, including in particular cooperation to arrests suspects, gather and preserve evidence, protect witnesses, and enforce our sentences.   Domestic courts of each country also need support so that they can investigate and prosecute international crimes themselves. The ICC is not a replacement for national courts; it should only step in if they cannot fulfil their duty to do it.   To seriously address atrocity crimes, there must be a unified, comprehensive response from the international community. We have to demonstrate that there are consequences for those who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is our duty to do our utmost to provide justice to victims of such acts.   None of this can happen unless national, regional and international actors alike are aligned in their commitment to the rule of law, human rights and justice. To deter future crimes, we must establish a consistent pattern of accountability.   For those who have suffered harm, and for future generations, we stand firm in our commitment to make sure that justice is done. We ask everyone to join us in this cause. Only together can we make the hopes of 17 July a reality.   15 July 2016   Marking a Day for International Justice, by Sarah Lansky, Senior Associate, International Justice Program. (Human Rights Watch)   The past year has seen important gains for justice for victims of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity – victories we should celebrate on the Day of International Criminal Justice, July 17.   Highlights include the start of the trial against Congolese rebel leader Bosco Ntaganda, who evaded an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for seven years, and the conviction of former Congolese vice president Jean-Pierre Bemba in the first ICC case in which sexual violence as a weapon of war was the most prominent charge.   There were also the first prosecutions of Syrian war crimes suspects – albeit lower-level figures – in European domestic courts, the conviction of Radovan Karadzic for his role in the 1995 Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the conviction and sentencing to life in prison of Hissène Habré, the former dictator of Chad, by a special court set up in Senegal – the first of its kind in Africa.   Yet many obstacles to international justice remain, and some are worsening.   In many places around the world, victims have no access justice. The last of the ICC’s cases related to Kenya’s 2007-2008 post-election violence collapsed this year, leaving no easy path ahead for victims. Some ICC member countries refuse to cooperate with the court and help arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. And there is pressure to constrain the court’s budget – despite rising demands.   Backlash from a vocal minority of African governments that accuse the ICC of bias against Africans escalated over the past year. In January, the African Union even tasked a committee with considering the issue of withdrawal from the ICC by its member countries.   True, the ICC has limitations, and some powerful countries have not joined. But for a reality check on why the ICC remains crucial for Africa and the world, visit the link below to watch a short video featuring African activists. Chino Obiagwu, of Nigeria’s Legal Defence and Assistance Project, recounts horrific crimes committed on the continent with impunity. Angela Mudukuti, from the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, debunks the myth that the ICC is targeting Africa, explaining that Africa is simply making use of a court it helped create. And Stella Ndirangu, of the International Commission of Jurists-Kenya, reminds us that the ICC only became an AU target when it began to hold African leaders accountable.   This week the AU is holding a summit in Rwanda. It’s unclear if a call for ICC withdrawal is on the agenda. Let’s hope African leaders have heard the voices of African activists – joining with victims around the world – and will mark this International Criminal Justice Day by offering the ICC more support, not less.   http://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/15/dispatches-marking-day-international-justice Visit the related web page
	View more stories