European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech Brussels, 31 May 2016 The Commission together with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft (“the IT companies”) today unveil a code of conduct that includes a series of commitments to combat the spread of illegal hate speech online in Europe. The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally.  They share, together with other platforms and social media companies, a collective responsibility and pride in promoting and facilitating freedom of expression throughout the online world. However, the Commission and the IT Companies recognise that the spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms. In order to prevent the spread of illegal hate speech, it is essential to ensure that relevant national laws transposing the Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia are fully enforced by Member States in the online as well as the in the offline environment. While the effective application of provisions criminalising hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated. Vĕra Jourová, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, said, “The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalise young people and racist use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.” Twitter’s Head of Public Policy for Europe, Karen White, commented: “Hateful conduct has no place on Twitter and we will continue to tackle this issue head on alongside our partners in industry and civil society. We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow. However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate. In tandem with actioning hateful conduct that breaches Twitter’s Rules, we also leverage the platform’s incredible capabilities to empower positive voices, to challenge prejudice and to tackle the deeper root causes of intolerance. We look forward to further constructive dialogue between the European Commission, member states, our partners in civil society and our peers in the technology sector on this issue.” Google’s Public Policy and Government Relations Director, Lie Junius, said: “We’re committed to giving people access to information through our services, but we have always prohibited illegal hate speech on our platforms. We have efficient systems to review valid notifications in less than 24 hours and to remove illegal content. We are pleased to work with the Commission to develop co- and self-regulatory approaches to fighting hate speech online.” Monika Bickert, Head of Global Policy Management at Facebook said: “We welcome today’s announcement and the chance to continue our work with the Commission and wider tech industry to fight hate speech. With a global community of 1.6 billion people we work hard to balance giving people the power to express themselves whilst ensuring we provide a respectful environment. As we make clear in our Community Standards, there’s no place for hate speech on Facebook. We urge people to use our reporting tools if they find content that they believe violates our standards so we can investigate. Our teams around the world review these reports around the clock and take swift action.” John Frank, Vice President EU Government Affairs at Microsoft, added: “We value civility and free expression, and so our terms of use prohibit advocating violence and hate speech on Microsoft-hostedconsumer services. We recently announced additional steps to specifically prohibit the posting of terrorist content. We will continue to offer our users a way to notify us when they think that our policy is being breached. Joining the Code of Conduct reconfirms our commitment to this important issue.” By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary. The IT companies will also endeavour to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking. The IT Companies also underline that the present code of conduct is aimed at guiding their own activities as well as sharing best practices with other internet companies, platforms and social media operators. The code of conduct includes the following public commitments:                                                                      The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:                                                                                                                       The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct. Upon receipt of a valid removal notification, the IT Companies to review such requests against their rules and community guidelines and where necessary national laws transposing the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, with dedicated teams reviewing requests. The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary. In addition to the above, the IT Companies to educate and raise awareness with their users about the types of content not permitted under their rules and community guidelines. The use of the notification system could be used as a tool to do this. The IT companies to provide information on the procedures for submitting notices, with a view to improving the speed and effectiveness of communication between the Member State authorities and the IT Companies, in particular on notifications and on disabling access to or removal of illegal hate speech online. The information is to be channelled through the national contact points designated by the IT companies and the Member States respectively. This would also enable Member States, and in particular their law enforcement agencies, to further familiarise themselves with the methods to recognise and notify the companies of illegal hate speech online. The IT Companies to encourage the provision of notices and flagging of content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct at scale by experts, particularly via partnerships with CSOs, by providing clear information on individual company Rules and Community Guidelines and rules on the reporting and notification processes. The IT Companies to endeavour to strengthen partnerships with CSOs by widening the geographical spread of such partnerships and, where appropriate, to provide support and training to enable CSO partners to fulfil the role of a “trusted reporter” or equivalent, with due respect to the need of maintaining their independence and credibility. The IT Companies rely on support from Member States and the European Commission to ensure access to a representative network of CSO partners and “trusted reporters” in all Member States helping to help provide high quality notices. IT Companies to make information about “trusted reporters” available on their websites. The IT Companies to provide regular training to their staff on current societal developments and to exchange views on the potential for further improvement. The IT Companies to intensify cooperation between themselves and other platforms and social media companies to enhance best practice sharing. The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking. The IT Companies to intensify their work with CSOs to deliver best practice training on countering hateful rhetoric and prejudice and increase the scale of their proactive outreach to CSOs to help them deliver effective counter speech campaigns. The European Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to contribute to this endeavour by taking steps to map CSOs’ specific needs and demands in this respect. The European Commission in coordination with Member States to promote the adherence to the commitments set out in this code of conduct also to other relevant platforms and social media companies. The IT Companies and the European Commission agree to assess the public commitments in this code of conduct on a regular basis, including their impact. They also agree to further discuss how to promote transparency and encourage counter and alternative narratives. To this end, regular meetings will take place and a preliminary assessment will be reported to the High Level Group on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and all forms of intolerance by the end of 2016.    

DAKAR, Senegal — Hissène Habré, the former president of Chad, was sentenced to life in prison after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity, torture and sex crimes on Monday, more than 20 years after the start of a campaign to hold him accountable for the suffering and death of tens of thousands of people. Mr. Habré, who ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990, when he was deposed by the current president, Idriss Déby, stood trial before a special court in Senegal created to handle the case. Prosecutors had sought a life sentence, which he is expected to serve in Senegal. “The systematic torture at such a large scale was his way of governing,” said Gberdao Gustave Kam, the presiding judge on a three-judge panel, who read a summary of the verdict. “Hissène Habré showed no compassion toward the victims or any regret about the massacres and rapes that were committed.” Victims and relatives of victims screamed with joy after the verdict was announced. Mr. Habré, who had sat silently during the 90-minute hearing, raised his fists to supporters and shouted for several minutes until armed guards led him away. The fact that the trial even took place was considered a victory for many of the victims of Mr. Habré’s government. The case meandered through the judiciary in Belgium and elsewhere for years before landing in Senegal, where Mr. Habré, 73, fled after being forced from power. On Monday morning, a group of about 30 victims and widows of victims slowly walked into the courthouse together, many graying and using canes, a testament to the time it had taken for the case to come to trial. “This is a testimony to the perseverance of a band of victims, activists and supporters who made this trial happen,” said Reed Brody, a Human Rights Watch lawyer from New York who was influential in pursuing the case. “This trial was the result of the sweat and determination of the survivors.” Several international human rights lawyers were in the gallery on Monday to hear the verdict, including the prosecutor who indicted Augusto Pinochet, the dictator who ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990. Mr. Habré has been called the African Pinochet. During the trial, which started in July, prosecutors presented secret-police archives that recorded the names of 12,321 prisoners, interrogation reports and information about the deaths in detention of more than 1,200 people. François Serres, Mr. Habré’s lawyer, has dismissed the records as “fakes.” During the trial, defense attorneys said there was no evidence connecting Mr. Habré to crimes committed by others and contended that the prosecution was political. Mr. Habré’s son and other relatives were in court on Monday but declined to comment before the proceedings. According to a Chadian truth commission, Mr. Habré’s government killed more than 40,000 people who were believed to be enemies of the state, or who had merely come under suspicion. Evidence heard by the court, known as the Extraordinary African Chambers, included tales of torture and putrid conditions in prisons where Mr. Habré’s enemies were taken, sometimes without being given any reason for their detention. Testimony involving sex crimes also figured in the trial. One woman described Mr. Habré’s raping her, insisting when a judge interrupted that she be allowed to continue her testimony in public so that the world could know what the former president had done. On Monday, the judges specifically convicted Mr. Habré of that rape. Others testified about relatives who had disappeared, and former prisoners described being wounded after their limbs were tied behind their backs. One former prisoner, Clément Abaifouta, said in an interview that he could never forget the horrors he had seen in jail. Mr. Abaifouta, who was in court for the verdict, had worked in a prison kitchen and a laundry room before he was ordered to take on a new role, as gravedigger. “What broke my life is the fact that I buried about 1,000 people,” he said. “With all that Habré did, we could cut him into pieces and it wouldn’t satisfy everyone.” Mr. Habré was first indicted in 2000. The setting of the trial in Senegal offered a peculiarity: the courts of one country prosecuting the former leader of another in a human rights case. The trial proceeded with the blessing of the African Union, even though the organization has long complained that Africans are often singled out before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The Hague court had no jurisdiction in this case because its authority is limited to events that took place after it was fully established in 2002. But the International Court of Justice, the highest United Nations court, ordered Senegal to try Mr. Habré or extradite him for trial elsewhere. This prompted Senegal to create a special court with the backing of the African Union. The three-judge panel, with two judges from Senegal and one from Burkina Faso, used Senegalese law to reach the verdict. Mr. Habré took power during a coup that was covertly aided by the United States, and he received weapons and assistance from France, Israel and the United States to keep Libya, to the north of Chad, and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, then the Libyan leader, at bay. At the beginning of the case, Mr. Habré was a combative defendant, brought into court by force after refusing to participate in the hearings. Some of his supporters started a website denouncing the trial and his treatment by the court. Mr. Habré often wore sunglasses and a turban during testimony, rarely turning to look at the more than 90 witnesses, according to courtroom observers. He dressed in a similar fashion on Monday, looking more like a nomad facing a sandstorm than a former president on trial.  

On 30 May 2016, The Trial Chamber IX of the International Criminal Court (ICC) scheduled the opening of the trial in the case of The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen for 6 December 2016. This date was set by the Chamber after noting the respective submissions by the Prosecution and the Defence as well as the necessary time for the disclosure of evidence and other materials. In addition, the Chamber decided that it will only hear opening statements on 6 December 2016. The presentation of evidence by the Prosecution in the case will commence in January 2017 and the exact date will be announced in due course. The trial is conducted by Trial Chamber IX, composed of Judge Bertram Schmitt, Presiding Judge, Judge Peter Kovacs and Judge Raul C. Pangalangan. Background: On 23 March 2016, Pre-Trial Chamber II confirmed the 70 charges brought by the Prosecutor against Dominic Ongwen, as alleged former Commander in the Sinia Brigade of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and committed him to trial. The confirmed charges concern crimes against humanity and war crimes allegedly committed during attacks against the Pajule IDP (October 2003), Odek IDP (April 2004) Lukodi IDP (May 2004) and Abok IDP camps (June 2004), as well as sexual and gender-based crimes directly and indirectly committed by Dominic Ongwen and crimes of conscription and use in hostilities of children under the age of 15 allegedly committed in northern Uganda between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. Mr Ongwen was surrendered to the ICC on 16 January 2015 pursuant to an ICC warrant of arrest and transferred to the Court’s custody on 21 January 2015.    

Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Statement to the United Nations Security Council on the Situation in Libya, pursuant to UNSCR 1970 (2011).   New York 26 May 2016   ‘It is a distinct honour to once again be at the Council’s table to present my Office’s eleventh report on the Situation in Libya pursuant to Resolution 1970, unanimously adopted in 2011. This honour is all the more pronounced given that I address the Council under your Excellency’s Presidency, having just returned from a most productive official visit to Cairo where I engaged with relevant Government Ministries on issues of mutual concern, including the Situation in Libya, its spill-over effects and the threat of Daesh on Egypt and more generally, on the Middle East and North Africa. I would be remiss if I did not benefit from this occasion to reiterate my sincere appreciation for the warm hospitality extended to me and my delegation in Cairo. I assure you, Mr President, of my Office’s readiness to continue our constructive dialogue with the Egyptian authorities and to follow-up on the matters so helpfully explored in Cairo. I am confident that my Office’s engagement with Egypt will lead to positive results. The last six months have witnessed significant developments in Libya’s slow and difficult process towards the establishment of a unity government. On 17 December 2015, participants in the political dialogue representing broad segments of Libyan society signed a United Nations brokered agreement on forming a government of national unity. United Nations Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-moon expressed hope that “the signing of the agreement will put Libya back on the path of building a democratic State based on the principles of inclusion, human rights and the rule of law.”  It is equally my Office’s hope that the signing of the Agreement marks the beginning of the end of the long period of turmoil and conflict in Libya.  Justice, accountability and the deterrent effects of the law remain critical components for achieving lasting peace in Libya, and my Office stands ready to work collaboratively with the Government of National Accord in its efforts to build a secure, peaceful and prosperous Libya for all Libyan people. To this end, I encourage the Government of National Accord to give priority to devising effective plans and strategies to address atrocity crimes, and to invest in the relevant national institutions responsible for such critical work.  This will demonstrate, in concrete terms, that justice and accountability constitute key Government priorities underpinning efforts to ensure peace and stability in Libya, and that the victims will have the opportunity to seek redress through the Libyan courts. Similarly, over the same period, my Office’s investigations into the Libya situation have progressed, albeit at a slower pace than we would have liked due to lack of sufficient resources and the prevailing precarious security situation in the country. Despite these   challenges, our investigations are continuing to yield positive results, in large part due to the cooperation of the Libyan Prosecutor-General’s office from whom the Office has received numerous documents pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by my Office and the Libyan government in 2013. Notwithstanding limited resources and the inability at the present time to conduct in situ investigations in Libya, my modest Libya team has been able to pursue leads and other avenues of collecting evidence through our investigations.  My Office is continuing to carefully analyse and assess the evidence in our possession to determine whether the requisite legal standards are met to request additional arrest warrants.  In short, Mr President, notwithstanding the numerous challenges that we face, my Office remains firmly committed to its mandate vis-à-vis Libya, and will continue to be focused and industrious in the fulfilment of that mandate. As highlighted in my latest Report, the Situation in Libya requires collaboration and coordination between all relevant actors at the national, regional and international levels.  The support of this Council remains equally crucial. Success in Libya therefore depends on the collective determination and the will of all relevant actors to meaningfully contribute to the course of bringing perpetrators to justice and by so doing, help deter the commission of future crimes. The threat of Daesh or other groups proclaiming allegiance to Al- Qaida remains real and the consequences are too costly to be ignored. They include instability and the dire humanitarian situation in Libya and instability, which in turn result in mass migration, and the spread of terrorism in the country and the region. I reiterate my previous calls to all national and international law enforcement agencies that are working on Libya to contact my Office and join it in its efforts to strengthen the network of law enforcement agencies that aim to contribute to bringing an end to civilian suffering and destruction in Libya. I remain convinced that increased cooperation between and amongst relevant actors as well as coordinated investigative activities are key for tackling national, transnational and international crimes that continue to plague Libya and for ensuring that those responsible for committing these crimes have no safe haven anywhere.   In this regard, I am particularly pleased with the interest and efforts thus far by national law enforcement agencies to coordinate with my Office, with each other and with Libyan authorities. The international community has invested significant capital into restoring security in the country. While nascent, this growing network is beginning to take shape as it explores efforts to share essential information and strategies for tackling criminality in Libya. Those who finance or encourage the commission of grave crimes in Libya must understand clearly that they will be held accountable. As the Government of National Accord assumes its duties, we recall that Libya remains under a positive legal obligation to immediately arrest and surrender Mr Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court (“Court”); a fact noted by this Council in Resolution 2238. We urge the Government of National Accord to prioritise the transfer of Mr Gaddafi to its own custody and facilitate his surrender to the Court. It is also important for the Government of National Accord to consult with the Pre-Trial Chamber on issues relating to the surrender of Mr Gaddafi, and to seek assistance from the international community as deemed appropriate, on how best to facilitate the surrender of Mr Gaddafi to the Court without further delay. The unique factual circumstances of this case and the lack of progress also justify the adoption of complementary, exceptional and innovative measures. It bears emphasising that Libya has submitted to the Court that “Mr Gaddafi continues to be in custody in Zintan and is presently ‘unavailable’ to the Libyan State.” As such, as part of its on-going efforts to enhance prospects for Mr Gaddafi’s surrender, my Office recently filed a request with Pre-Trial Chamber I for an order directing the Registry to transmit the request for arrest and surrender of Mr Gaddafi directly to Mr al-‘Ajami al-‘Atiri. Mr al-‘Atiri is  the Commander of the battalion that is detaining Mr Gaddafi in Zintan. The Pre-Trial Chamber is yet to issue its decision on this request. In the event that the request is granted, the Office hopes that Mr al-‘Atiri and the battalion he commands will cooperate and surrender Mr Gaddafi to the custody of the Court to be tried. Should he fail to comply, this Council should consider adopting appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the Chamber’s order. In relation to Mr Abdullah Al-Senussi, the Office has received a copy of the written judgment of the Libyan court in relation to his case and has conducted a preliminary review of the judgment. At this time, the Office is not in possession of facts which would satisfy it that new facts have arisen which negate the basis on which Pre-Trial Chamber I found Mr Al-Senussi’s case inadmissible. The Office will continue to review its assessment if and when new relevant facts become available. While the Appeals Chamber has recognized that, in the context of admissibility proceedings, the ICC is not primarily called upon to decide whether domestic proceedings violate certain requirements of human rights or domestic law, it is incumbent upon the Government of National Accord to ensure that the highest standards for investigations and prosecutions are met. In this context, I am encouraged that arrest warrants have been issued for those individuals suspected of committing crimes, including torture, in Al Hadba prison. Follow-up actions for their arrest and prosecution must be undertaken. I will continue to encourage and follow the Libyan authorities’ efforts to investigate the allegations of torture at Al Hadba prison and to bring those found responsible to justice. My Office remains concerned about ongoing civilian deaths, with reported executions by Daesh accounting for the majority of these, although civilian deaths continue to also result from the Libya Dawn-Libya National Army conflict. Moreover, abductions, detentions, and ill treatment in detention centres continue to be reported on all sides of the conflict. The Mediterranean-Libya migratory route to Europe remains a popular option among refugees and migrants who are particularly vulnerable to violence, sexual violence and ill-treatment in Libya. Detention of thousands of migrants continues to be a source of financing for many militant groups in Libya. We as, the international community, must take a closer look at who profits from criminal activity in Libya, and take coordinated steps to prevent further violations. This must be a priority for all who are affected by the criminal trafficking of human beings. For its part, the Office continues to carefully evaluate how to best utilise its limited resources to maximise its impact on the present situation in Libya. While the Office is continuing its investigations into officials linked to the former reign of Mr Muammar Mohammad Gaddafi, it is also focused on on-going crimes in Libya. Despite resource constraints, the Office is assessing the potential to expand its investigations into these new crimes, such as those alleged to have been committed by Daesh and Ansar Al-Sharia. However, the Office recalls and stresses that States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute their nationals who have joined the ranks of Daesh, Ansar Al-Sharia and other militias operating in Libya. I must reiterate that until my team is able to carry out investigations in Libya, and until the issue of resources is resolved, the Office will simply be unable to advance the investigations as rapidly as desired. We are optimistic, however, that in the coming months, we will be able to resume our functions in Libya, and accelerate our efforts to bring to justice those responsible for Rome Statute crimes, in coordination with key partners in and outside of Libya.  Here, I would like to acknowledge and commend the critically important work being carried out by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (“UNSMIL”).  I had the pleasure of receiving the Head of UNSMIL and Special Representative of the Secretary General, Mr Martin Kobler in The Hague earlier this week, and canvassed the many areas where our respective offices can enhance cooperation in accordance with our independent mandates.  Mr Kobler and I both agree that accountability for the grave crimes under the Rome Statute is indispensable to stability and sustainable peace in Libya.  This meeting of the minds and recognition must translate into concrete positive changes on the ground.  We are determined to do just that in close collaboration with the Government of National Accord. I greatly appreciate the efforts of all States that have engaged and cooperated with the Office in support of our investigations in Libya, including neighbouring Tunisia and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I also encourage all States to intensify their efforts to support investigations and prosecutions of Rome Statute crimes alleged in Libya. Finally, I call upon all States that have not responded to Requests for Assistance to do so without further delay. State cooperation with the Office is indispensable for the success of its work in Libya and all other situations under investigation. Libya and the Libyan people deserve peace and stability on which to secure and build their future; they deserve the rule of law and by the law rather than lawlessness and the current climate of perpetual insecurity and flux. To conclude, Mr President, we must continue our work, albeit under difficult circumstances. Where we work together in an intelligent, reflective and coordinated manner, we can help make a difference in restoring stability in Libya.  This Council and the international community must stay committed to Libya and help it emerge triumphant in the face of adversity. Nations are not built overnight, but to last and to withstand the challenges of the 21st century they must be built on strong foundations.  Justice will always serve as a central pillar.’ © UN Photo/Manuel Elias   

Pictured here: ICC Judge Bertram Schmitt with the winning team from Lomonosov Moscow State University © ICC-CPI/Aleksandra Milic Lomonosov Moscow State University won the final round of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Moot Court Competition, Russian version, held in Courtroom II of the new ICC premises in The Hague (the Netherlands). Siberian Federal University won second place and Kazan Federal University came in third. The Best Speaker award went to Ruslan Sharipov of Kazan Federal University. Members of the winning team are Marila Andreeva, Sergei Kondratev, Georgii Kurganskii, Karina Kotenko and Alina Tsykunova. On the judge’s bench for this competition were ICC Judge Bertram Schmitt, presiding, Special Assistant to the ICC President Philipp Ambach and Legal Officer Rebecca Young. This version of the ICC Moot Court Competition is organised by the Law Faculty of National Research University Higher School of Economics with institutional support from the ICC. This year, 13 teams and 70 students representing two countries (Russia (12) and Belarus (1)) took part in the preliminary stage of the competition, which was completed in early May. Three of the teams were from Moscow, five teams were new to the competition this year, and the geographical scope of competing teams spanned across several thousand kilometers from west (Kaliningrad) to east (Krasnoyarsk in Siberia).

In the wider competition, the judges represented 11 countries (Russia, UK, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Germany, Switzerland and Kazakhstan) and included university professors, legal practitioners, former competitors who now work in the sphere of either international or criminal law. Former ICC Judge Anita Usačka also took part in the competition as a judge. The organisational and financial support for the competition was provided by Kuznetsova’s Center for International Criminal Law and Comparative Criminal Law Studies (Faculty of Law, Lomonosov Moscow State University), the Russian National Group of International Association of Penal Law, the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Russian Federation, the International Committee of the Red Cross (Regional Delegation in Moscow), the legal firms ‘FBK Legal’ and ‘Zabeyda, Kasatkin, Saushkin and partners’. The Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Russian Federation also supported the competition and the winning teams in their trip to The Hague. The Ambassador of the Kingdom of Netherlands, H.E. Ron J.P.M. van Dartel visited the semi-final rounds. At the closing ceremony he addressed the participants and delivered the prizes to the winners. In the context of its Academic Programme, the ICC supports the organisation of ICC Moot Court Competitions in Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish, with a view to also support Arabic and French versions in the future. These initiatives play a critical role in galvanising interest in the Court’s work with academic communities as well as in enhancing promotion and respect for international criminal law.     

Pictured ICC Judge Howard Morrison with the winning team from Singapore Management University © ICC-CPI/Aleksandra Milic.   Singapore Management University wins ICC Moot Court Competition, English version  The Singapore Management University won the ICC Moot Court Competition – English edition. The final round was held today, 27 May 2016, in Courtroom II of the new ICC premises in The Hague (the Netherlands). The University of Cologne (Germany) and the National Law School of India University, Bangalore (India), won, respectively, second and third places. The award for the Best Speaker went to Ruben Dillmann from the University of Cologne. Members of the winning team are Angus Koh, Joy Yee, Stephania Wong, Teng Sheng Saw, Selina Yap, Nurul Fajarani and Edmund Koh.

On the judge’s bench for this competition were Judge Howard Morrison, presiding, Special Assistant to the ICC President Philipp Ambach and Legal Officer Mary Ann Power. This version of the ICC Moot Court Competition is organised by the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies – Leiden University and sponsored by Planethood Foundation, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Luxembourg and the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in The Hague. 350 students participated in the preliminary stage of this year’s ICC Moot Court Competition; they were from 59 universities in 44 countries, representing each continent.

In the context of its Academic Programme, the ICC supports the organisation of ICC Moot Court Competitions in Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish, with a view to also support Arabic and French versions in the future. These initiatives play a critical role in galvanising interest in the Court’s work with academic communities as well as in enhancing promotion and respect for international criminal law.  For additional pictures, please open the following link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/icc-cpi/sets/72157654784542005/with/18734831955/  

Eurojust supports Operation Top Secret spy case: successful Portuguese–Italian cross-border cooperation This past weekend, two arrests and seizure of evidence took place in Rome, with the close cooperation of Portuguese and Italian authorities. The case related to a Portuguese national and a Russian national suspected of being paid to transfer confidential information to a foreign intelligence service. This action was part of a case investigated by the Portuguese Central Criminal Investigation and Penal Action Department (DCIAP) responsible for investigating the crimes of espionage, violation of state secrecy, corruption and money laundering. For this purpose, two European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) and a rogatory letter were issued. In addition to the two arrests and the seizure of evidence, house searches were carried out in Portugal. The Portuguese and Italian judicial authorities have emphasized the crucial role played by Eurojust in ensuring the speed and accuracy of legal proceedings and admissibility of evidence in court. The two suspects were arrested and put in custody following the execution of the two EAWs and brought before the competent Italian judicial authorities. In these investigations, which by their nature are secret, the prosecution is assisted by the Portuguese National Unit for Combating Terrorism of the Judicial Police, whose researchers went to Italy to assist in compliance with the rogatory letter issued by DCIAP. The Portuguese and Italian National Members of Eurojust remarked: Espionage cases are relatively rare, and require unique solutions. Eurojust’s Portuguese and Italian National Desks played a vital role in the successful outcome of this case. Working seamlessly together with the national authorities, two EAWs were rapidly executed, and legal proceedings and the collection of admissible evidence were assured.