By Baron Henri Estramant. Civil rights activist and leader of the Democratic Party of the Friendly islands ‘Akilisi Pohiva was voted in as Tonga’s first non-noble Prime Minister on 29 December 2014.  Tonga is a constitutional monarchy, albeit the King gave up many constitutional powers in 2010 to pave the way for a parliamentary democracy. The country’s monarchs had previously appointed the prime minister and the cabinet. The 2010 constitutional reforms increased the number of elected commoners, or “people’s representatives” to 17, left the number of nobles at 9, and gave the 26-member Parliament the right to select the head of government. The King assumed a largely ceremonial role, but remains much revered by Tongans. Back in 2010, the newly elected MPs could not agree on ‘Akilisi Pohiva as their candidate for prime minister. Instead, the noble MPs (selected by 33 holders of hereditary titles) clubbed together with the more conservative elected politicians from the northern islands of Tonga to select Lord Siale’ataonga Tu’ivakano as Prime Minister and Minister of foreign Affairs.  In the latest vote in December 2014, however, the “people’s representatives” garnered their votes, and elected Mr Pohiva with 15 ballots against 11 from the opposition. Thus far the new cabinet includes only one noble, Lord Ma’afu, as Minister for Lands and His Majesty’s Armed Forces.  The new Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pohiva has distinguished himself for being a fervent defender of democracy to the detriment of reyal power, and the privileges of the nobles. Indeed he was imprisoned in 1996 for “contempt of parliament”.       

Statement of the Office of the Prosecutor regarding the reported abduction and murder of Mr. Meshak Yebei The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reiterates its condolences to the family of Mr. Meshak Yebei.  Every loss of life is a unique and profound tragedy for the family that is left to mourn.  The perpetrators of this heinous crime must swiftly and decisively be brought to justice.  The Office of the Prosecutor reiterates its willingness to assist the competent authorities of the Republic of Kenya, as appropriate, to effectively investigate the circumstances of Mr. Yebei’s death. The Office of the Prosecutor wishes to address recent speculation alleging the involvement of the Office in Mr. Yebei’s tragic demise.  The Office of the Prosecutor wishes to categorically state that any suggestion that the Office of the Prosecutor was involved in Mr. Yebei’s alleged abduction and murder is both outrageous and utterly false.  Nothing could be further from the truth. To avoid any doubt, the Prosecution wishes to clarify the public record regarding Mr. Yebei’s status in the context of the Prosecutor’s case against Messrs. Ruto and Sang.  During the course of the Prosecution’s investigations, the Office of the Prosecutor contacted numerous individuals in Kenya, including Mr. Yebei.  However, Mr. Yebei was ultimately not included on the Prosecution’s list of trial witnesses due to, amongst other reasons, information indicating that Mr. Yebei was deeply implicated in the scheme to corrupt Prosecution witnesses in the case against Mr. Ruto and Mr. Sang. Prosecution witnesses in this case have been under siege.  The Office of the Prosecutor has identified a network of individuals who have been working together to sabotage the Prosecution’s case against Messrs. Ruto and Sang, by using bribes and/or threats to either dissuade witnesses from testifying in this case or influence Prosecution witnesses to recant their testimony. In this context, on 2 August 2013, Pre-Trial Chamber II of the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Walter Osapiri Barasa on charges of interfering with ICC witnesses, contrary to Article 70(1)(c) of the Rome Statute.  The surrender of Mr. Barasa to the ICC remains outstanding. The Office of the Prosecutor continues to monitor and investigate other incidents of witness interference.  Investigations and prosecutions before the International Criminal Court can stand or fall on the willingness of witnesses to come forward and present their evidence in the courtroom.  The Office of the Prosecutor will continue to do everything in its power to ensure that witnesses are able to present their evidence before the Court without fear.

By Roy Lie A Tjam. By reciting the Portuguese Jewish philosopher Spinoza’s Ultimi barbarorum, Mayor of The Hague, Mr Jozias van Aartsen opened the manifestation to mark the terrible events that took place in Paris yesterday. Thousands of citizens, including ambassadors, diplomats and the wider international community, responded to the invitation by the city’s corporation and headed to the Plein in downtown The Hague to attend the solemn ”Je suis Charlie”manifestation. In addition to Mayor Van Aartsen, the journalist Lex Oomkes and Xavier Rey of the Embassy of France delivered an address. The event was concluded by a short march from Plein to the City Hall. Bouquets of flowers were placed in front of the city’s press centre Nieuwspoort en route.

By Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of International Law, Law Faculty, University of Costa Rica. Last January 6, United Nations Secretary General issued a note indicating that ICC’s Rome Statute will enter into force as to the State of Palestine on April 1, 2015 (see official note of Secretary General acting as depositary of Rome Statute). On 7 January 2015, the President of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute welcomed the deposit by Palestine of the instruments of accession to the Rome Statute of the ICC as well as the agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court (APIC) (see official ICC press release). On the very same day, ICC Registar sent a letter to Palestine authorities (see letter) confirming the reception of a declaration made pursuant article 12(3) of Rome Statute: “Excellency, I hereby confirm receipt, on 1 January 2015, of your 31 December 2014 “Declaration Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court” which was lodged with me pursuant to article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, and in which you state that “the Government of the State of Palestine recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging authors and accomplices of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since 13 June 2014.” Pursuant to Rule 4(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute has the effect of the acceptance of jurisdiction with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5 of the Statute of relevance to the situation, as well as the application of the provisions of Part 9 of the Statute and any rules thereunder concerning to States Parties. I hereby accept the declaration and I have transmited it to the Prosecutor for her consideration. This acceptance is without prejudice to any prosecutorial or judicial determinations on this matter“. In August 2014, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda explained in an article published in The Guardian her position with respect to the lack of jurisdiction of ICC on crimes committed in Gaza (see article). It must be recalled that on January 21, 2009, Palestine sent a similar declaration to ICC: « the Government of Palestine recognizes the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of identifying, prosecuting and judging the authors and accomplices of acts committed on the territory of Palestine since July 2002 ».  A selected group of experts in international law considered in 2010 that this declaration made in 2009 allowed ICC to exercise his jurisdiction on Gaza situation (see collective document  entitled: “Les effets de la reconnaissance par la Palestine de la compétence de la CPI”). In addition to the 1998 Rome Statute and the declaration made, there are other relevant international treaties to which Palestine is becoming State Party since Dec.31, 2014. The complete list of treaties that Palestine has acceded is the following: 1. Convention on the Political Rights of Women 2. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the ‘New York Convention’) 3. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal 4. Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 5. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) 6. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III) 7. Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses 8. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents 9. United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime 10. Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel 11. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 12. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity 13. Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court 14. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 15. Declaration in accordance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 16. The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons 17. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 18. Convention on Cluster Munitions (Source: UNISPAL note reproducing the letter of President M. Abbas of Dec 31, 2014). Concerning UN Convention of 1997 on International Watercourses, a recent note in a specialized site on international water regulations indicated that: “In addition, with Palestine’s accession to the Convention, Israel is now the only state in the Jordan River Basin to not have joined the treaty. Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria – all riparians to the Jordan River Basin – became Parties to the Convention in 1999, 1999, and 1998, respectively“.