War crimes judges at the International Criminal Court Thursday
ruled that South Africa failed in its duties to the ICC in 2015 when it
refused to arrest Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted on
genocide charges.
Presiding judge Cuno Tarfusser said
"The chamber concludes that by not arresting Omar al-Bashir while he was
on its territory ... South Africa failed to comply with the court's
request" for his arrest and surrender.
The much
awaited ruling slapped Pretoria for failing in its obligations and
hindering the work of the world's only permanent war crimes tribunal, of
which it is a founding member.
This was "contrary" to
the provisions of the court's guiding Rome Statute and prevented it from
seeking to prosecute Bashir on 10 charges of war crimes, including
three of genocide in Sudan's western Darfur region.
Further action
Judges
stopped short of referring the matter to the UN Security Council for
further action, with Tarfusser saying "a referral would be of no
consequence".
Despite two international arrest warrants issued in 2009 and
2010, Bashir remains at large and in office as conflict continues to
rage Darfur.
In June 2015, Bashir attended an African
Union summit in Johannesburg, and despite earlier consultations between
ICC and South African officials then flew out of the country again
without restraint.
UN Security Council asked the ICC in
2005 to probe the crimes in Darfur, where at least 300,000 people have
been killed and 2.5 million displaced since ethnic minorities took up
arms against Bashir's Arab-dominated government in 2003, according to UN
figures.
No diplomatic immunity
In
an April hearing at the ICC, Pretoria's lawyers had argued there "was
no duty under international law on South Africa to arrest" Bashir,
arguing there was "nothing at all" in the UN resolution to waive his
diplomatic immunity.
But ICC prosecutor Julian Nicholls
rebutted that South Africa "had the ability to arrest and surrender him
and it chose not to do so."
Ultimately, the only
reason Pretoria did not arrest Mr Bashir was that South Africa
"disagreed with ... the law as set out... so it did not comply," he
said.
Judges unanimously agreed on Thursday's ruling
that international obligations cannot "simply be put aside" if a country
disagrees with them, and ruled that in the case Bashir did not enjoy
diplomatic immunity.
No comments :
Post a Comment