Posted: 03 Feb 2010 06:11 PM PST
by Kevin Jon Heller
I intend to closely follow the reactions to the Appeals Chamber’s decision on the genocide charges against Bashir. The pushback has already begun in a predictable place: the Making Sense of Darfur blog, which has led the charge against the arrest warrant. The post itself, in which David Barsoum asks “what is the ICC really after in Sudan?”, is not particularly noteworthy, because the answer is straightforward: accountability for a mass murderer who has done everything he could for nearly two decades to prevent any kind of peace that would threaten his regime. More interesting — and more troubling — is Alex de Waal’s comment to Barsoum’s post. He writes:
This episode at the ICC is somewhat bizarre. In March last year, the pre-trial chamber issued the arrest warrant that the Prosecutor had requested. This made Pres. Bashir into a fugitive from justice. The crimes for which he is charged are no less heinous than genocide. Any additional charges added subsequently make absolutely no difference to that reality. The Prosecutor’s decision to appeal against the exclusion of the genocide charges, while perfectly permissible in law, served only the purpose of satisfying the personal or political ambition of the Prosecutor. If the ICC ever succeeds in getting Pres. Bashir in Court, the Prosecutor can then add whatever charges he believes are warranted by the evidence. Insisting on them at this stage is a political act.
None of Alex’s claims are compelling. First, it is difficult to seriously maintain that there is no difference between charging someone with crimes against humanity and genocide. There may be no difference in terms of the maximum possible sentence, but it clear that genocide is viewed as far more serious than even the crime against humanity of extermination. That’s why Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide.” That’s why we have a Genocide Convention. That’s why activists and scholars and governments put so much energy into ensuring that various situations — Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds, the Khmer Rouge’s “auto-genocide,” China’s treatment of Tibet, Australia’s treatment of aboriginals, etc. — are (or are not) labeled genocide instead of “mere” crimes against humanity. Perhaps it is regrettable that we rank international crimes, but there is no question that we do. Indeed, if Alex genuinely believed there was no difference between genocide and crimes against humanity, he would not have spent so much time and energy over the past year attempting to rebut the claim that Bashir committed genocide. He admits that Bashir committed crimes against humanity on a massive scale, so if there is no difference, why bother to oppose describing the situation in Darfur as genocidal?
(There is, of course, an important theoretical justification for viewing genocide as more serious. The identity of the victims is irrelevant in the crime against humanity of extermination; any mass killing will suffice. In genocide, by contrast, the victims are singled out for extermination because they are members of a particular racial, ethnic, religious, or national group. Genocide is thus more serious than extermination in two ways: (1) the crime threatens the existence of a particular protected group, a result that would reduce human diversity; and (2) the victims are specifically targeted for extermination by the perpetrator, a more culpable mental state than the one required by extermination, which is simply the intent to kill.)
Alex’s second claim — that the decision to appeal the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision on the genocide charges “served only the purpose of satisfying the personal or political ambition of the Prosecutor” — is simply incorrect. The Pre-Trial Chamber completely misunderstood Article 58’s “reasonable grounds” standard, leading it to wrongly exclude the charges. Whatever one thinks of the genocide charges against Bashir — and Moreno-Ocampo is far from the only person who supports them — the OTP could not permit the Pre-Trial Chamber’s flawed standard to go unchallenged, because it would have almost certainly come back to haunt the office in otherdifferent charges. As the Appeals Chamber noted in its decision (para. 33), “requiring that the existence of genocidal intent must be the only reasonable conclusion amounts to requiring the Prosecutor to disprove any other reasonable conclusions and to eliminate any reasonable doubt.” In other words, the Pre-Trial Chamber effectively converted the “reasonable grounds” requirement into a requirement of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard that applies at trial, not at the arrest warrant stage. That erroneous interpretation of “reasonable grounds” was not limited to the Bashir case or to the genocide charges; it represented the Pre-Trial Chamber’s first sustained interpretation of Article 58. The OTP thus had to challenge it. cases involving
That explanation of the OTP’s decision to appeal helps rebut Alex’s third claim, which is that we can conclude that the decision was a “political act,” because “[i]f the ICC ever succeeds in getting Pres. Bashir in Court, the Prosecutor can then add whatever charges he believes are warranted by the evidence.” Adding the genocide charges later would not address the mischief created by the Pre-Trial Chamber’s erroneous interpretation of Article 58. Moreover, seeking to amend the arrest warrant is far more fair to Bashir (or to any defendant in like circumstances) than waiting until the confirmation of charges hearing, because it puts him on notice now — not months or years from now — that he will be facing genocide charges. Bashir is going to be a fugitive from justice either way, so isn’t it better for all the charges to be on the table as early as possible? I can only imagine the outcry from Bashir supporters and defense attorneys (including me) if the OTP had never mentioned genocide charges until Bashir was standing in front of the Pre-Trial Chamber!
Critics of the ICC often claim that the Court pays insufficient attention to politics. I think it’s safe to say that most of those critics pay insufficient attention to law.
.
