Activism

International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara

Mavi Marmara 1792948c
Thousands of Turkish protestors greet the Mavi Marmara ship as she returns to Istanbul December 2010 (Photo: EPA)
 

Yesterday May 14th Fatou Bensouda, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), released a statement announcing her office would be opening a preliminary investigation into the massacre on board the Mavi Marmara in which the lives of 9 human rights activists were brutally cut short by the Israeli military  on May 31, 2010, in international waters off the coast of Gaza.

The ICC, otherwise known as “The Hague” is the permanent war crimes court in The Hague, Netherlands.

ICC media release, Office of Chief Prosecutor Bensouda:

Today my Office met with a delegation from the Istanbul-based Elmadag Law Firm, acting on behalf of the Government of the Union of the Comoros, a State Party to the International Criminal Court since 18 August 2006.

The delegation transmitted a referral “of the Union of the Comoros with respect to the 31 May 2010 Israeli raid on the Humanitarian Aid Flotilla bound for Gaza Strip, requesting the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Rome Statute to initiate an investigation into the crimes committed within the Court’s jurisdiction, arising from this raid’’.  In accordance with the requirements of the Rome Statute my office will be conducting a preliminary examination in order to establish whether the criteria for opening an investigation are met. After careful analysis of all available information, I shall make a determination that will be made public in due course.

The Mavi Marmara was registered in the sovereign state of the Comoros at the time of the attack. The Union of Comoros, an archipalego island nation off the coast of Africa, is a party to the Rome Statute.

The referral, hand delivered to Prosecutor Bensouda, reads “we kindly request urgent investigation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of alleged crimes.”

The materials respectfully submittted clearly demonstrate that the ICC possess both subject matter and territorial jurisdiction under Article 12 (2) (a) of the Rome statue and further support the position that reasonable basis exist to proceed with an investigation into the said incident.

220px Deputy Prosecutor
ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda

Prosecutor Bensouda is legally bound to open this initial investigation. Comoros is one of the four Arab League ICC state parties. That automatically confers jurisdiction on the Court for crimes committed on vessels flagged in Comoros.

Fatou Bensouda has been ICC Chief Prosecutor since June 2012. Earlier in her career she was Senior Legal Advisor and Head of the Legal Advisory Unit at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Interestingly, she is an expert in international maritime law and the law of the sea. She acquired a Master of Laws from the International Maritime Law Institute in Malta.

Mondoweiss commenter Hostage:

This preliminary investigation will act as a deterrent against similar acts in the future, whether the Prosecutor does anything on the basis of this referral. The attacks on Greek and Cambodian vessels and the attacks on Gaza fishing boats throughout this long-term siege/blockade amount to a situation, not just an isolated crime.

The pending amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression categorize blockades as illegal acts, and Israel has systematically and forcibly transferred humanitarian aid flotilla passengers across international boundaries to its own territory. So there is ample justification for an investigation and the possibility of indictments.

(Hat tip Mondoweiss commenter Hostage)

96 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bravo little Comoros at last an Arab League state with a backbone, for your information, here is an event which took place at the Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights very recently concerning the ICC….

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flphr.org.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FLPHR-SEMINAR11.doc&ei=2faTUbf8AsqEiwLqh4HQBQ&usg=AFQjCNHoHhs6Xfg20CS7qpcQASD-ayg0uw&sig2=HQnwRMAqPZNRajzJhvLc4Q&bvm=bv.46471029,d.cGE

The event commenced with Professor Schabas discussing the International Criminal Court (ICC). The hopes for the ICC were that it would be independent of the United Nations Security Council but it remains strongly influenced by political pressures particularly from the United States. Therefore, the problem with getting Palestine before the ICC becomes a political one.

There are three ways in which the ICC can have jurisdiction. Firstly, the ICC has jurisdiction over States which have joined the court, neither Palestine nor Israel have. Secondly, the ICC has jurisdiction if the Security Council asks the ICC to open an investigation, which has happened with Libya and Sudan, and it is at the Prosecutor’s discretion whether to pursue it. Thirdly, a State that is not a member can say that the ICC has jurisdiction, which is what Palestine did in January 2009. The Prosecutor seemed to be considering it but Professor Schabas reported that Wikileaks revealed that the Prosecutor assured the United States that they would not be bothered about Palestine. The Prosecutor then left office saying ‘it was not for me to decide’ which is legally wrong, and left it for the UN General Assembly.

The fact that the ICC has jurisdiction is not enough for an investigation, there must also be a trigger. The triggers can be at the request of one of the Member States, at the request of the Security Council or by the Prosecutor, but this last trigger must be authorised by a panel of three judges.

Assuming that there is jurisdiction, based on the Palestine 2009 declaration and the General Assembly resolution, the next step would be to find a trigger for investigation. One of the Member States could have done this and there were informal talks about encouraging this perhaps from a Latin American country, but politically no State wants to trigger jurisdiction over another State. Palestine could join the court to trigger the investigation, which would be a simple process but would still leave them in the hands of the Prosecutor who always has a veto. Professor Schabas expressed that whilst it is ultimately about the politics of the Prosecutor, it is still worth trying.

There are concerns that the ICC itself is not healthy, after a decade there have only been two trials with one conviction and an acquittal. Six out of 14 cases pursued have flopped, another is flopping, and one is faltering. Yet it is possible that Palestine would be good for the Court. All States are in principle equal before the court which would mean the scrutiny would be on both Palestine and Israel. Yet the question remains as to whether the court would dare to deal with a case like Palestine. Diplomats have expressed concern that it would destroy the Court to tackle such a politically sensitive issue, politicising the court and risking alienating the United States as an ally of the Court.

Professor Schabas closed with asserting that under the Rome Statute it is a war crime to move civilians into settlements and therefore Israel would have a case to answer to the ICC. There is a hope that the Prosecutor will take it up, but ultimately politics will decide.

RE: “International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara”

MY COMMENT: Fiat justitia! ( “Let Justice Be Done!” )
Justice for Furkan Dogan and the others!

P.S.
REV. M.L.K. JR (1963): “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”
CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN (1958): “[J]ustice too long delayed is justice denied”

This is great news. Thanks Hostage and Annie

Interesting!

Excellent job annie and hostage.
Follow this and keep us informed please.

I am not familiar with the politics in Comoros, but I am used to look at the motivations behind the actions of governments around the world. What does Comoros gain by going to the ICC? Why now? Why after the news of a potential payment to the family of the victims who choose to settle with Israel?

Comoros is not the wealthiest economy on earth, quite the opposite… are they trying to create some leverage with Israel and try to bring them to the negotiation table for a monetary settlement? A legal question I would hope someone can answer is if the referral to the ICC can be withdrawn once filed.

I may be totally off-target and Comoros is acting with the best intentions, but I think we should question or at least have a conversation about the motivations underlying Comoros’ action.