Why does the International Criminal Court keep silence on Gaddafi`s death?

11:50 24/10/2011

This story by Dr. Alexander Mezyaev, International Law Department of Governance Academy (Kazan`), Strategic Culture Foundation expert, was published in International Affairs magazine.

The alleged killing of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has brought several crucial issues of international law to the forefront. Though it is evident that many pieces of video footage featuring Gaddafi`s last hours are fake, still there are some which may prove real. It is easy to explain why fake videos have been made: they were aimed to suppress courage in the rebels, and – if we suggest that the video showing Gaddafi`s killing are fake – to prevent a new wave of uprising set for the nearest future. But my task now is to analyze the footage showing Gaddafi`s bloodied body from the point of view of international law, no matter whether the videos were fake or real, but relying on the fact that the footage was considered genuine by the global media and NATO leaders.

For the past few days we have been shown the footage of a man, who looked much like Gaddafi, being brutally killed. The world`s major political factions have reacted differently. But the reaction of the International Criminal Court deserves special attention.

Russia`s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called for a thorough investigation in to Gaddafi`s death. Even the world`s leading human rights organization, Amnesty International, commented on the event. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court keeps silence. Why?

At the moment Gaddafi was captured he was still alive. After the capture he was dead – the video footage shows him having a bullet hole in his left temple. This is enough to qualify his killing as a war crime.

In March the UN Security Council (UNSC) admitted that Libya was in grip of an armed conflict, which means that all the sides involved in the conflict should abide to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, including Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Its Article 3 says: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria". Otherwise, all actions causing the death of a captive should be viewed as a 'serious violation' of the Convention. The word serious in this context is a legal definition which serves to differentiate between common violations the ICC does not have to deal with, and grave crimes which rightly fall under the Court`s jurisdiction. So, what was demonstrated on TV about Gaddafi`s death, is a serious violation of the norms of international law.

The reasons for the ICC to keep silence about the situation are quite obvious: on having started the hearings into Gaddafi`s death, they will by all means have to investigate numerous reports on crimes committed by the National Transitional Council (NTC). The easiest thing the ICC could do in this situation would be to say that the Court was founded to deal with the gravest crimes, while the killing of one person is not the case. But they can`t say that, first of all because the case has already been classified as 'serious crime', and, secondly, as the Gaddafi case has been opened already. The last thing the ICC is now expected to do is to qualify the killing as an obstacle to exercise justice. They can't keep silence any longer. Gaddafi`s murder is not a private case but a part of a bigger case, which has been launched earlier. Certainly, the death of a key defendant impedes the investigation, but those who killed him can be identified in the video.

The UN General Assembly rejected Muammar Gaddafi`s appeal to investigate the killings of all state and government leaders of UN member countries throughout 65 years of the organization`s history. It proves that in most countries the authorities do not want publicity on those killings. But if Gaddafi was alive and put to trial, he could have testified on a number of very controversial issues, including the Lockerbie bombing, as well as on some other operations carried out by the West against Libya and other countries. Thus, having put Gaddafi on trial, the ICC would have become the least interested in bringing the process to the logical end.

But the Court is silent on Gaddafi`s death. On the day when the ousted Libyan leader was killed, the ICC addressed the Republic of Malawi in southeast Africa to explain why it failed to arrest the Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir during his visit to Malawi last Friday in accordance with the order issued in 2008. Why the ICC does not demand the same from the Libyan authorities?

Remarkably, the official accusations once unveiled by the ICC against Gaddafi include 'the use of lethal force', 'manslaughter', 'cruelty and torture'. The question is why Gaddafi`s case should be viewed differently from what has been going on in the neighborhood. The ICC definitely has the reason.

http://en.rian.ru/international_affairs/20111024/168045085.html

James Bissett: NATO Still Getting It Wrong In Kosovo

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/NATO+still+getting+wrong+Kosovo/5595475/story.html

Ottawa Citizen
October 24, 2011

NATO still getting it wrong in Kosovo
By James Bissett*

In the three years since Kosovo, urged on by the United States, declared its unilateral independence, there has been no final resolution of this long-festering wound in the heart of the Balkans.

After the expulsion of the Serbian military from Kosovo in 1999 there was a systematic purging of the non-Albanian population and a rampage of revenge killing, and destruction.

In March, 2004, the Albanian mobs burned or dynamited more than 204 Christian churches and monasteries - some of them heritage structures dating back to the 14th century. This veritable orgy of devastation was accomplished under the watchful eyes of NATO troops who did nothing to stop the violence.

On Sept. 15, the Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, visited Pristina, the capitol of Kosovo, and again repeated the usual refrain that NATO was there to maintain a secure and safe environment and emphasized that "We will continue to do so - firmly, carefully, and impartially."

Less than two weeks after his departure from Kosovo on Sept. 27, his impartial NATO troops opened fire with live ammunition on a crowd of Serbian civilians demonstrating against the establishment of Kosovo customs posts along the border between Serbia and northern Kosovo, effectively cutting them off from Serbia proper. At least six of the demonstrators were wounded. The standoff continued over the weekend.

This incident took place at the same time our NATO leaders were vigorously protesting the shooting of protesters in Syria and Yemen.

So far, there have been no apologies from the NATO leadership and no demands for a full inquiry.

Kosovo, since its so-called liberation from Serbia, has become a failed state with massive unemployment, crime and corruption prevalent, and a leadership deeply involved in the importation of heroin and arms, and human smuggling - not to mention serious allegations about the harvesting of human body parts.

Nevertheless, Kosovo is the stepchild state of the U.S.-led NATO powers, and therefore must be seen to be a success. NATO cannot admit to failure.

After all, we are told 80 countries have recognized its independence. Little mention is made that there are 113 countries of the United Nations who refuse do so - including Greece, Cyprus, Spain and Slovakia - all members of NATO.

There is a larger than life statue of president Bill Clinton in Pristina. Shortly after the occupation of Kosovo the Americans constructed the enormous Camp Bondsteel. Kosovo is their baby and at all cost it must be accepted as a sovereign state. Unfortunately, the costs are high and may well spell the demise of NATO as a respected champion of the rule of law and democratic freedom.

Canada was involved in drafting Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty that stated that NATO would never use or threaten to use force in the resolution of international disputes and would always act in accordance with the principles laid down by the United Nations Charter. Alas, we never hear anything more about Article 1.

After the collapse of the Soviet empire, Article 1 came to be seen by the United States as an obstacle in preventing NATO (read the United States) from intervening in out-of-area disputes and in using force to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives, frequently under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

The first opportunity of doing this was the bombing of Serbia on the false grounds that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was planning to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of its majority Albanian population and that genocide was taking place there.

Without consulting the United Nations and in violation of its own treaty, NATO bombed Serbia for 78 days and nights and was successful in tearing away an integral part of that country's territory.

The United States and some of the NATO countries, including Canada, have gone further by recognizing the declaration of independence of Kosovo, despite UN Resolution 1244 that reaffirmed Serbia's sovereignty over that province.

By doing so they have opened Pandora's Box and issued an open invitation to the many groups and tribes around the world aspiring for their own state to do so by simply declaring independence. Can anyone really blame the Palestinians for expecting anything less?

*James Bissett is former Canadian ambassador to the former Yugoslavia.

Kosovo: Can You Imagine? | Boris Malagurski (2009) - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nHWsWOgtiw 29min

SNN

ANTIC.org-SNN Archive

October 24, 2011