Category Archives: International Criminal Court

Gallery

Zintan “rebels” arrested Saif ICC defence lawyers – “Ribelli” di Zintan arrestano avvocati ICC di Saif

This gallery contains 2 photos.

* Yesterday “rebels” from Zintan arrested Melinda Taylor (one of the lawyers appointed by ICC to defend Saif) and other 3 officials from ICC who came in Libya to visit Saif. Local officials accused her of trying to pass to … Continue reading

Gallery

The “humanitarian” war – La guerra “umanitaria” (Video)

This gallery contains 1 photos.

* This is an excellent documentary that exposes the fraud of the so-called “humanitarian” war (English/French audio with Italians subtitles). * Documentario “La guerre humanitaire” di Julien Teil. Versione italiana e sottotitoli a cura di Giuliano Luongo (Ricercatore Associato IsAG) … Continue reading

Gallery

Seif al-Islam Gaddafi and the Fight behind the Scene over His Fate – La lotta dietro le quinte per il destino di Seif al-Islam (ENG-ITA)

This gallery contains 2 photos.

* Seif al-Islam Gaddafi and the Fight behind the Scene over His Fate by Alexander MEZYAEV The legal proceedings against Seif al-Islam, the son of Muammar Gaddafi, have developed into an unusual situation, that has had no precedents in the … Continue reading

Gallery

ICC orders the termination of the case against Muammar Gaddafi

This gallery contains 1 photos.

Pre-Trial Chamber I orders the termination of the case against Muammar Gaddafi ICC-CPI-20111122-PR745  On 22 November 2011, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) decided to terminate the case against Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi. The ICC Prosecution … Continue reading

Gallery

Responsibility to protect: the “liberation” of Sirte

This gallery contains 2 photos.

According to NATO  figures, coalition aircraft delivered 415 key strikes on the town of Sirte between Sunday 28th August and Thursday 20th October. We have compared this to the bombing of Guernica and other comparisons have been made to the … Continue reading

To the International Crime Court (ICC): this person has to be WANTED, captured and judged, for murder, incitement to murder, and war crimes

Alla Corte Penale Internazionale per Crimini di Guerra (ICC): per questa persona, come per il resto dei Capi dei “Ribelli” e l’NCT, deve essere emesso un mandato di cattura Internazionale. Vanno catturate, ovunque esse siano, e giudicate per omicidio, istigazione all’omicidio e crimini di guerra.

At the International Criminal Court for War Crimes (ICC): for this person, as for the rest of the Heads of the “Rebels” and the NCT, must be issued an international arrest warrant. Should be captured wherever they are, and judge for murder, incitement to murder and war crimes.

By LibyanFreePress

Gallery

NATO bombings, al-Qaeda and the Arab Spring

This gallery contains 1 photos.

Rahnuma Ahmed – ShahidulNews – 9/10/2011 In war, truth is the first casualty. Words of wisdom, gifted to us by Aeschylus. Truer than ever now, two thousand years later, as NATO bombs Libya in the name of `protecting’ its civilians. … Continue reading

Libya to prosecute NATO in international courts

Libya to prosecute NATO in international courts

Rianovosti – Libya intends to prosecute NATO in international courts for the Western military alliance’s attempts to physically eliminate country’s leader Muammar Gaddafi and members of his family, the Libyan Justice Ministry said in a statement.

The statement comes after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued on Monday an arrest warrant for Gaddafi, accusing him of torturing and killing opponents of his regime.

“The so-called International Criminal Court is only a cover for operations of NATO, which repeatedly tried to physically eliminate the leader of the Revolution [Gaddafi] and his family members,” the statement said.

The ministry added that such actions of NATO are “war crimes,” which must be prosecuted in international criminal courts.

The warrants issued by the Hague-based court on Monday also cover Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi.

A statement, read out by presiding judge Sanji Monageng, said the ICC had “reasonable grounds to believe” that the three men ordered murders and persecution of civilians.

Gaddafi, who as “the recognized and undisputed leader of Libya had absolute, ultimate and unquestioned control” over the state, designed a state policy “aimed at deterring and quelling, by any means, including by the use of lethal force, the demonstrations of civilians against the regime,” the Pre-Trial Chamber I said.

Saif al-Islam is “the most influential person” within Gaddafi’s inner circle, the warrant says, although he holds no official position.

Thousands of people have died in the five-months-old conflict, and more than 650,000 people have been displaced.

Related: A NATO-led operation to protect Libyan civilians entered its 100th day on Monday.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110628/164879369.html

NATO is an outlaw, the ICC is its accomplice

NATO is an outlaw, the ICC is its accomplice

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey – Pravda.Ru – 28.06.2011

 

The International Criminal Court at The Hague is a pariah in the world of Justice and International Law; those who work for it are traitors to their cause, the Institution itself is an insult to every fibre of civilisation and a knife in the back of the notion that the law prevails and is applied without bias.

It is patently clear nowadays that the ICC is a tool in the hands of NATO – a cynical tool which bases itself on the pseudo-precept that it follows the law, a manipulative organism which twists legal principles and applies them with two weights and measures. What is amazing, is that those behind the ICC and NATO think that the public will believe them.

NATO has committed war crimes in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. NATO has committed terrorist attacks occasioning murder in all three theatres of war. Nothing happened, the ICC remained silent. Arrest warrants have been served for David Cameron and Barack Obama in police stations near their places of work and residence for the murder of Colonel Gaddafi’s three grandchildren and other civilians in Libya. Monitoring the situation, we see that nothing has yet happened.

NATO’s violation of the law

NATO’s remit in Libya were UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) which, summarised, concentrated on no boots on the ground in Libya among NATO forces and this is not the case – violation 1; the enforcement of a no-fly zone, which does not include strafing civilian structures  – violation 2; measures to protect civilians from being attacked does not mean attacking government forces fighting hundreds of heavily armed terrorists – violation 3.

Under the UN Charter it is illegal to take sides in an internal conflict – violation 4; it is illegal to murder or attempt to murder government officials – violation 5; with no formal declaration of war, with no remit from the Military Committee of the UNSC, any action occasioning murder is illegal – violation 6; ditto attempted murder – violation 7; ditto actions occasioning grievous bodily hard – violation 8; ditto actual bodily harm – violation 9; ditto criminal damage – violation 10.

Under the Geneva Conventions it is illegal to attack civilian structures with military hardware – violation 11; it is also illegal to deploy in theatres of conflict munitions and weaponry which will have an affect after such conflict. The alleged use of cluster bombs by NATO and of Depleted Uranium (there are several precedents) could provide violation 12.

At least eleven, possibly 12, violations of international law in Libya, countless others in other operations, and the ICC says nothing. The judges of the ICC receive their instructions and insult their academic area, the fundamental principles of law and their professional class with barefaced arrogance. I challenge Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo to investigate the above charges and to pronounce himself.

The joke which is the ICC

Two international lawyers have exposed the joke which the ICC is. Within just a few hours, lawyers Themba Langa (South Africa – Counsel to Muammar al-Qathafi, Saif al-Islam al-Qathafi and Abdullah al-Senussi) and Fabio Maria Galiani (Italy – Legal advisor and member of the defence team) uncovered no less than eight points of law proving that the ICC is a kangaroo court without one iota of legal validity, yet again proved in this case. Their points are summarised as follows, my observations in brackets.

They point out that for a start the Court has no jurisdiction in Libya because it was never ratified there, that anyway notwithstanding this, under international customary law a Head of State has immunity (did they take Saddam Hussein to The Hague?. Indeed the ICC has no jurisdiction in the USA, so why should it have any in Libya?)

Secondly they point out that the referral to the ICC by the UN Security Council is a violation of jurisdiction, independence and impartiality because it instructs the Court to exclude prosecution for certain persons and in following this directive, the ICC itself is in violation of its own constituent Statutes; thirdly the UNSC does not have the power to dictate terms over Libya to the ICC and anyway under international customary law, the ruling yesterday by the ICC is invalid in countries not signatories to the Rome Treaty which set up the Court.

Fourthly, if in the following instances, the Prosecutor has still not decided whether to open a case on Georgia (because the evidence is being considered) since 2008 (three years); on Guinea since 2009 (two years), on Colombia since 2006 (five years) why then was all the evidence on Libya read, digested and treated legally within just three days when the investigation was opened? (Where is the case against Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi? Where are the cases against the Islamist terrorists who massacred Black Libyans and children? Where is the case against NATO, against Obama, against Cameron, against Sarkozy, against Berlusconi?)

Fifthly the ICC did not even notice that the referral by the UNSC violated the Court’s Statute; sixthly, if NATO respects the Court and its deliberation, (why is it continuing to perpetrate 100 terrorist attacks a day protecting terrorists?) then the defendants should have the right to defence themselves. Seventh, NATO is accountable for murder, destruction of property and injury to civilians (acts of terrorism) and eighth, the entire campaign has been based on manipulation through the media (rendering the legal tenets void under any normal court of law. But then again, the ICC is no court of law, is it?)

Next, on the impartiality of this “Court”, the lawyers mentioned above claim in their statement:

“One of the judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber I, Mr. Cuno Tarfusser, recently made statements to the Italian media on the situation in Libya which indicated that the ICC is not impartial”.

One last question, why do the USA, UK and France prohibit the delivery of baby food to Libyan children? Isn’t it enough for Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy to murder them by bombing? If them enjoy murdering children, why don’t they start at home? When they look at their children, do they hear the screams of Colonel Gaddafi’s grandchildren as they fried in their own blood?

So, Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo, what, as a judge and a lawyer, do you have to say to THAT? Nothing, of course, because we know who and what you are.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey – Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-06-2011/118335-nato_icc_criminals-0/

Moreno Ocampo, cameriere di USA & GB

De minimis non curat praetor

giugno 29, 2011 di byebyeunclesam

Ora che i giudici della Corte Penale Internazionale dell’Aja, accogliendo la richiesta del procuratore Louis Moreno Ocampo, hanno spiccato un mandato di arresto per crimini contro l’umanità nei confronti di Muammar Gheddafi, del figlio Seif al Islam e del capo dei servizi segreti libici Abdellah Senussi, risultano più che mai pertinenti le considerazioni svolte dallo studioso di diritto internazionale Danilo Zolo, in una recente intervista che riproduciamo qui (grassetti nostri).

“Esiste il rischio che un’azione della Corte Penale Internazionale (CPI) sia controproducente per la soluzione di una crisi o possa esacerbare sopiti contrasti interni ad un paese?
Non vedo in questo momento rischi di questo tipo. La Corte Penale Internazionale ha svolto sinora un’attività giudiziaria molto ridotta, limitandosi ad una serie di indagini marginali nel Nord Uganda, nella Repubblica Democratica del Congo e nella Repubblica Centrafricana. Si tratta di aree molto lontane dall’epicentro geopolitico dei conflitti che oggi impegnano le grandi potenze occidentali. A mio parere sono altri gli aspetti severamente criticabili nell’attività della Corte, in particolare della Procura. Il Procuratore Moreno Ocampo si è finora distinto per il suo ossequio nei confronti delle potenze occidentali, anzitutto degli Stati Uniti e della Gran Bretagna. Egli non ha esitato ad archiviare ben 240 denuncie formalmente presentate alla Procura contro i crimini commessi in Iraq dalle truppe angloamericane nel 2003.
Nonostante ne avesse piena competenza, in particolare nei confronti della Gran Bretagna, Ocampo non ha avviato alcuna indagine ed è ricorso ad una motivazione grottesca dell’archiviazione delle denuncie. Esse erano immotivate, ha sostenuto, poiché non tenevano conto dell’assenza di qualsiasi “intenzione dolosa” da parte delle milizie anglo-americane che avevano aggredito e poi occupato l’Iraq. A suo parere la strage di decine di migliaia di persone innocenti era stata involontaria. Quanto alla recente incriminazione e condanna del presidente del Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir, giuristi autorevoli e ben informati come Antonio Cassese hanno giudicato del tutto infondata la decisione della Procura. In sostanza, Moreno Ocampo si profila sempre più come una brutta copia dell’ex Procuratore del Tribunale ad hoc per la ex-Jugoslavia, Carla del Ponte. Entrambi sembrano destinati a passare alla storia della giustizia internazionale come magistrati pesantemente condizionati dalla volontà delle potenze occidentali.
Non a caso la competenza a intervenire in Sudan era stata attribuita a Ocampo dal Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite, nonostante che il Sudan non fosse sottoposto alla giurisdizione della Corte. E questa operazione era stata voluta dagli Stati Uniti, che avevano preteso e ottenuto in cambio che i militari e i civili statunitensi presenti in Sudan venissero sottratti alla giurisdizione della Corte. Siamo ancora una volta di fronte ad una giustizia al servizio delle grandi potenze del pianeta: una “giustizia dei vincitori”.

Pensa che l’intervento della CPI durante la crisi libica contro Gheddafi abbia contribuito ad escludere una soluzione diplomatica del conflitto?
La soluzione diplomatica del conflitto libico non solo non è stata mai voluta da nessuno, ma si è voluto esattamente il contrario e cioè scatenare una guerra di aggressione sotto le vesti dell’intervento umanitario. Non è un caso che a usare la forza sia rapidamente intervenuta (illegalmente) la NATO e che tuttora la NATO stia usando la forza in una guerra vera e propria che molto probabilmente durerà ancora per molti mesi.
In realtà l’intervento della Corte Penale Internazionale nella questione libica non è stato che un’escamotage degli Stati Uniti e dei loro alleati. Si trattava di dare un aspetto di legalità internazionale ad una guerra di aggressione totalmente contraria alla Carta delle Nazioni Unite, in particolare alla prescrizione del comma 7 dell’art.2: nessuno Stato può intervenire con la forza per risolvere questioni interne ad un altro Stato. La disponibilità del procuratore Ocampo era ovviamente scontata. Nonostante che gli Stati Uniti non avessero riconosciuto la Corte Penale Internazionale, il 26 febbraio l’ambasciatrice statunitense Susan Rice aveva sollecitato il Consiglio di Sicurezza a incaricare il procuratore Ocampo di un immediato intervento. Ocampo non si aspettava niente di meglio: accolto l’invito, ha provveduto con una rapidità eccezionale (il 3 marzo) a dichiarare colpevoli di crimini contro l’umanità otto cittadini libici, fra i quali figuravano, oltre a Gheddafi, il figlio Saif al Islam e il capo dell’intelligence Abdullah al Senoussi. “Le prove sono enormi”, aveva solennemente dichiarato il procuratore, senza minimamente indicare le ragioni della sua certezza. De minimis non curat praetor…


La Corte Penale Internazionale si propone come organo di giustizia globale eppure Stati Uniti e Israele non hanno intenzione di ratificare il trattato che la legittima, mentre Russia e Cina, facenti parte del Consiglio di Sicurezza ONU, non hanno aderito alla Corte. Un organo giudiziario così costituito può dirsi globale? Quali alternative propone per il diritto internazionale? È possibile una “regionalizzazione” della giustizia?
La Corte Penale Internazionale non è sorta come un organo di giustizia penale “globale”. La Corte è stata creata come una istituzione giudiziaria sulla base di un libero accordo internazionale fra un certo numero di Stati. La competenza della Corte non solo non ha effetti retroattivi, ma è tale che per intervenire la Procura deve di volta in volta accertare che all’interno dello Stato pertinente non sia già in atto un’attività investigativa. In questo caso la Procura deve sostanzialmente astenersi. Non va inoltre dimenticato che l’articolo 16 dello Statuto della Corte attribuisce al Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite – di fatto agli Stati Uniti – la facoltà di impedire o sospendere le iniziative della Procura della Corte. Dunque, nessun “globalismo” della giustizia internazionale e, almeno per ora, nessuna alternativa e nessuna “regionalizzazione”. L’egemonia mondiale degli Stati Uniti non cede. Nonostante i rischi economico-finanziari che attanagliano la potenza americana, il suo strapotere militare è per ora insuperabile.”

giugno 29, 2011 di byebyeunclesam

http://byebyeunclesam.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/de-minimis-non-curat-praetor/