Statement of the President of the International Criminal Court on the Occasion of Human Rights Day On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), naming the ‘inherent dignity’ and the ‘equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family’ as the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. This ground-breaking text laid out rights that apply regardless of race, religion, gender or socio-economic status. Since then, the international community has been striving to implement these ideals in a concrete way, adopting various legal instruments to this effect. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in 1998, reflects the values of the UDHR, and the ICC’s activities serve to defend some of the essential rights enumerated by the Declaration. The ICC has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, meaning that it can investigate and prosecute, for instance, violations of the right to life and liberty and violations of the prohibition of torture and slavery. By creating an international criminal court of last resort to deliver justice when national systems are unwilling or unable genuinely to do so, the Rome Statute aims at providing a consistent and comprehensive answer against impunity for the most serious international crimes. The ICC is now in its 13^th year of existence and has never been busier. 122 States have ratified the Rome Statute – almost two-thirds of the world’s sovereign nations. The ICC’s caseload is constantly expanding and breaking new ground. Final convictions were issued this year against individuals for attacking and killing civilians and the use of child soldiers. Almost 10,000 victims have been represented in proceedings and over 110,000 have been assisted by the Trust Fund for Victims. As such, the ICC’s activities are having a significant impact not just on individuals prosecuted before the Court, but also on the tens of thousands of direct victims and millions of people in the affected communities and societies. The ICC is thus truly helping to realise the UDHR’s vision by ending impunity, preventing future crimes and providing justice to victims. This mission would however be better fulfilled if all States ratified the Rome Statute, thereby allowing it to achieve true universality. Human Rights Day is an opportunity for us all to reflect on the progress that has been achieved since the adoption of the UDHR; but also on what remains to be done. In the wake of WWII, the Universal Declaration was drafted by visionaries. As one of the most recent additions to the mechanisms that seek to make this vision a reality, the ICC is helping to uphold human rights and dignity, and to deliver a credible promise of greater respect for and adherence to human rights everywhere.

Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi Case: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I issues non-compliance finding for Libyan Government and refers matter to UN Security Council On December 10th  2014, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a finding of non-compliance by the Government of Libya with respect to the non-execution of two requests for cooperation transmitted by the ICC, and decided to refer the matter to the Security Council of the United Nations. The Chamber found that Libya has failed to comply with the requests by the Court: (i) to surrender Saif Al‑Islam Gaddafi to the Court; and (ii) to return to the Defence of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi the originals of the documents that were seized by the Libyan authorities from the former Defence counsel for Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi in June 2012 in Zintan, and to destroy any copies thereof. The Chamber stressed that both outstanding obligations are of paramount importance for the exercise by the Court of its functions and powers under the Rome Statute and that the non‑compliance by Libya effectively prevents the Court from fulfilling its mandate, including its duty to protect the rights of the parties and the interests of victims. The Chamber recognised that throughout the proceedings, Libya demonstrated in several respects its commitment to the Court and made genuine efforts to maintain a constructive dialogue. The Chamber also noted the volatile political and security situation in Libya and stated that it was sensitive to the serious difficulties that Libya is currently facing. The Chamber emphasized that its decision was only based on the objective failure to obtain cooperation. It was not intended to sanction or criticize Libya but solely to seek the assistance of the Security Council to eliminate the impediments to cooperation.

ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda during an event to mark the official launch of her Office’s Policy on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes, at the United Nations (UN) in New York, on 7 December 2014.

ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, launches Policy on Sexual & Gender-Based Crimes: Ensuring victims have a voice in court today can prevent these crimes tomorrow #EndSexualViolence. On Sunday, December 7 at the United Nations (UN) in New York, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or the “Court”), Fatou Bensouda, hosted an event to mark the official launch of her Office’s Policy on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes and to stress the need to end impunity for such egregious crimes.  Sexual and gender-based crimes take place in conflict zones around the world with alarming intensity and frequency. “It is my duty as ICC Prosecutor to challenge the culture of impunity that allows sexual and gender-based crimes against girls and women, boys and men, in conflict and peace-time, to persist,” said Prosecutor Bensouda. The Policy, the first and most comprehensive of its kind adopted by an international institution, aims to strengthen the Office’s capacity to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of sexual and gender-based crimes falling within the Court’s jurisdiction in a systematic and comprehensive manner, and to enhance the integration of a gender perspective and expertise in all aspects of operations. First unveiled in June this year, the Office’s Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes is the product of extensive external consultations, including with relevant agencies of the UN, States Parties to the ICC, civil society and academia. “To date”, said the Prosecutor, “the Court has charged 17 individuals implicated in our cases with gender related crimes, whilst specific charges of sexual violence were proffered in 70 per cent of our cases. These high numbers illustrate the prevalence of such horrific acts. They also highlight the commitment to hold the perpetrators of such crimes accountable, and in the process, to send a strong message that the culture of impunity for such crimes will  be met with the full force of the law. We will continue on this path.” A number of high-level dignitaries and activists participated in the launch event, including: H.E. Catherine Samba-Panza, President of the Central African Republic; H.E. Mr. Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al–Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; H.E. Mrs. Zainab Hawa Bangura, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict; H.E. Mr. Sidika Kaba, Minister of Justice of Senegal and incoming President of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC; H.E. Ambassador Tiina Intelmann, outgoing President of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC; Ms. Angelique Kidjo, Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter and UN Goodwill Ambassador and Ms. Brigid Inder, Special Gender Adviser to ICC Prosecutor. The event was also attended by representatives of States and non-States Parties to the ICC, as well as, amongst others, civil society and academia. The event was sponsored by Open Society Foundations, the Institute for 21st Century Questions an Humanity United. Addressing assembled guests, including representatives of UN Member States, Prosecutor Bensouda stressed that unified action must be taken at both the national and international level by all relevant actors.  “We must relentlessly pursue accountability, domestically and internationally and send a clear, strong, and consistent message that in this new era of international criminal justice, sexual and gender-based crimes are serious crimes, which will neither be tolerated nor ignored,” she said. “The victims of such devastating crimes will not find solace in our words and promises, but in what we manage to deliver in concrete terms. We must end sexual and gender-based crimes, and I am confident, together, we can .”  

Diplomat Magazine wishes to announce the imminent departure from the Netherlands of one of its  volunteer (co)founders, Dr Eugenio Matos.  Dr Matos, the current Minister Counselor for the Embassy of the Dominican Republic in The Hague, will be taking up a new appointment as Minister Counselor for the Embassy of the Dominican Republic in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Dr Matos has been a driving force behind the scenes at Diplomat Magazine, overseeing the creation of the project from its humble beginnings with a handful of volunteers in 2013, to supervision of the first published paper edition in November 2014. As a diplomat in The Hague since 2010, Dr Matos has made his mark with his tireless energy for international life and enthusiasm for improving communications between Embassies and Diplomats in the Benelux region. As a talented violinist, he has also provided an important musical contribution to life in The Hague, including performances for the ICC. Diplomat Magazine with its regular Meet and Greet- and other  events will continue to be managed by the experienced DM team in The Hague who continue to take Diplomat Magazine forward both online and in print and look forward to the continuing loyalty of their readership. The team wish Dr Matos best of luck in his next assignment and would like to extend the invitation to him to report on life in Argentina for Diplomat Magazine in the future.

Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on the withdrawal of charges against Mr. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta On the 3rd of December 2014, the Judges of Trial Chamber V (B) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) declined to further adjourn the trial of Mr. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta.  Accordingly, given the state of the evidence in this case, I have no alternative but to withdraw the charges against Mr. Kenyatta.  Earlier today, I filed a notice to withdraw charges against Mr. Kenyatta.  I am doing so without prejudice to the possibility of bringing a new case should additional evidence become available. This is a painful moment for the men, women and children who have suffered tremendously from the horrors of the post-election violence, and who have waited, patiently, for almost seven years to see justice done. I have decided to withdraw the charges against Mr. Kenyatta after carefully considering all the evidence available to me at this time.  I have based this decision on the specific facts of this case, not on any other consideration.  As Prosecutor, my actions and decisions have always been guided by the law and the evidence.  Notwithstanding my personal commitment to pursue justice and accountability for Kenyans who were subjected to the terrible violence that swept through Nakuru and Naivasha after the 2007 elections, I can only proceed to trial when there is a reasonable prospect of conviction at trial based on the evidence at my disposal.  If there is no such prospect then it is my professional responsibility as Prosecutor to withdraw the charges against the accused. You will recall that on 5 September 2014, I  requested the Trial Chamber to adjourn the trial of Mr. Kenyatta until the Government of Kenya executes in full the Prosecution’s April 2014 Revised Request for records.  I informed the Chamber at that time that my evidence remained the same as when I sought an adjournment of the trial date in December 2013, and as such, that I did not consider the available evidence to be sufficient to prove Mr. Kenyatta’s alleged criminal responsibility beyond reasonable doubt as is required at trial. Despite my persistent efforts and those of my committed Team to advance the course of justice in Kenya, in this instance, those who have sought to obstruct the path of justice have, for now, deprived the people of Kenya of the accountability they deserve. I have explained to the people of Kenya the severe challenges my Office has faced in our investigation of Mr. Kenyatta. These include the fact that:

• ·        several people who may have provided important evidence regarding Mr. Kenyatta’s actions, have died, while others were too terrified to testify for the Prosecution;
• ·        key witnesses who provided evidence in this case later withdrew or changed their accounts, in particular, witnesses who subsequently alleged that they had lied to my Office about having been personally present at crucial meetings; and
• ·        the Kenyan Government’s non-compliance compromised the Prosecution’s ability to thoroughly investigate the charges, as recently confirmed by the Trial Chamber.

I am withdrawing the charges against Mr. Kenyatta because I do not believe that it is possible at this time, for me to fully investigate and prosecute the crimes charged in this case. The withdrawal of the charges does not mean that the case has been permanently terminated. Mr. Kenyatta has not been acquitted, and the case can be re-opened, or brought in a different form, if new evidence establishing the crimes and his responsibility for them is discovered. My Office will continue to receive and consider information which may shed light on those who are responsible for the 2007-2008 post-election violence, and will assess what further steps it can realistically and meaningfully take at this point in time in relation to the crimes committed in Nakuru and Naivasha, considering the current situation in Kenya. However, I wish to say a few words about the failure of the Government of Kenya to cooperate fully and effectively with my investigations in this case.  From the time that the Prosecution submitted its revised 8 April 2014 Request to the Government of Kenya, the material the Government sent us simply did not respond to a significant portion of our Revised Request for Records.  In short, most of the material sought in my Revised Request was not provided.  This is despite the fact that ICC Judges clearly confirmed that my Revised Request was valid, and dismissed all of the Government’s objections to it. In this situation, the most relevant documentary evidence regarding the post-election violence could only be found in Kenya.  Yet, despite assurances of its willingness to cooperate with the Court, the Government of Kenya failed to follow through on those assurances.  Ultimately, the hurdles we have encountered in attempting to secure the cooperation required for this investigation have in large part, collectively and cumulatively, delayed and frustrated the course of justice for the victims in this case. To conclude, today is a dark day for international criminal justice.  Be that as it may, it is my firm belief that today’s decision is not the last word on justice and accountability for the crimes that were inflicted on the people of Kenya in 2007 and 2008; crimes that are still crying out for justice.