Right now, as I sit here typing this, Charles Taylor is making history. Again. He is the first former African leader to be tried in an international court of any kind, and an elected one, at that. After three years in the custody of the International Criminal Court at The Hague, the former Liberian strongman took the stand in his own defense only a few days ago. Almost immediately, Taylor electrified the international press with both his vehement claims of innocence, and an answer to the mystery of his “escape” from a Massachusetts prison in 1985. Taylor’s testimony seemed to confirm what many people had long suspected was likely US government complicity in his escape and subsequent resurfacing in Libya.

While Charles Taylor is likely the only person who thinks he is innocent of the charges against him, the ICC has taken its fair share of criticism from across the political spectrum. Human rights groups and vocal segments of Liberian society have questioned the fact that Taylor is being tried for alleged crimes committed in Sierra Leone, while his storied misdeeds on Liberian soil go unpunished. Others point to the fact that every one of the fourteen men indicted by the court is African, and sarcastically refer to the ICC as the African Criminal Court. The obvious implication being that the court is only able to prosecute the (relatively) powerless, or worse, that the ICC is a tool of neo-colonialism. Others say that the breadth of the ICC’s mandate is likely to convince the worst human-rights abusers and despots to hold onto power at all costs, rather than end up in The Hague.

Certainly, one cannot help but wonder if Taylor would have agreed to the peace deal that helped persuade him to leave power in Liberia, for exile in Nigeria, had he known he would end up in shackles. Although Taylor’s trial is actually being adjucated by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and is merely being held on ICC property.

COOL’EH had the opportunity to broach all these topics and more with the Registrar of the Court, Ms. Silvana Arbia. The Registrar is the principal administrative officer of the Court and exercises his or her functions under the authority of the President of the Court.



What do you consider to be the significant accomplishments of the ICC, to date?

Since the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2003, the court has come a long way. An entire international institution has been built from scratch and today the International Criminal Court is a fully functioning judicial institution focused on it’s core activities of investigating, prosecuting and conducting trials of individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The court is carrying out judicial proceedings in connection with three situations referred by second parties, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. And a fourth situation, the situation in Darfur, was referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council, acting out Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter [in regards to] Resolution 1593.

So far the charges are fifteen arrest warrants and one summons to appear. Following the execution of one of these warrants and the subsequent confirmation of charges…the first trial relates to the situation of Democratic Republic of Congo against Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. It started on 26, January of this year. It is foreseen that during the second half of this year the Prosecution will rest and the Defense will begin to present it’s case around September or October, the date is not yet set.

A second case will start this year, again concerning the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is the case of Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngodjolo Chui. The accused will be tried jointly on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. So these are international crimes, which are very serious. The trial is scheduled to start on 26, September of this year if everything is done.



With regards to the situation in Uganda, historically, Uganda is the first case referred to the court. In this situation, the judge issued five arrest warrants against Joseph Kony and other commanders of the Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA. [These include] Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic Ongwen.

Turning to another situation concerning the Central African Republic. In October 2008, the government of this state was involved in a very important co-operation with the court because of the arrest of the suspect Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, who is now in detention in The Hague. In this case, the Pre-Trial chamber [confirmed] some of the charges…that means that this case can go to the trial stage.

Being that the list you just gave me is composed completely of Africans, it leads directly into my next question. What do you say to those who call the ICC, the “African Criminal Court” and generally imply that its mandate seems to only extend to the third world?

Yes, I know this kind of propaganda, which is baseless. I said before that the four situations before the Court are situations that are referred by the states themselves and the Security Council in the case of Sudan. That is a demonstration that this sort of propaganda is without any basis and this is fundamental. I would also say that nobody among the individuals or entities that are using this propaganda mentions that, to date, we count more than 1700 applications of African individuals to be admitted in our proceedings as the victims, and thereby [be eligible] for reparations. Nobody mentions that.



That is a very good point. At the same time, do you think the accusation is completely without merit or do you think it is something that needs to be taken into consideration? After all, people who make that accusation about the court usually point out that there are wars and violations of human rights going on around the world, yet the only people in the dock at the ICC are Africans.

No, it is a very important observation, which is consistent with the potentiality of this court. This Court, potentially, can consider every kind of situation in every part of the world because the trigger mechanism of referral through the UN Security Council means every situation could be brought to the Court for consideration—at least, preliminary consideration. But you have to consider if all the conditions to exercise jurisdiction are there or not. It is important to say that the jurisdiction of the Court is not for every type of crime. It is only for crimes that are included in the Rome Statutes, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as defined in the statute. So it is possible that other serious crimes cannot be prosecuted or investigated by the International Criminal Court because they are not in the jurisdiction of the court. It is important to consider [issues of] admissibility and limits of jurisdiction in a particular case, and what the Rome Statutes are very clear about as far as admissibility, is that there must be a level of gravity and seriousness. Article 17 of the Rome Statutes refers to this gravity, so it is also necessary that crimes considered by the ICC ought to be more serious than others. But if all these conditions are met, there are no limitations for the Court to act. If you consider that I mentioned the referrals, I have to mention that a state that is not part of the Rome statutes has the possibility to accept the jurisdiction of the Court. So with these mechanisms, potentially, the International Criminal Court is a real universal, international court.



As you must know, the ICC’s decision to issue warrants for the Sudanese leadership drew criticism from aid groups and some journalists who were subsequently kicked out of the country or harassed in other ways by the Sudanese authorities. How does the ICC balance the need for action with practical concerns or is that simply not a role on par with executing the Court’s mandate?

Yes, this is very important to reiterate; the fact that the warrant of arrest issued in March this year against President Omar Al-Bashir, like any other decision of this court [needs to be enforced]. This is essential. Sudan has a real and concrete obligation to co-operate because this has been decided by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1593. It is very clear that Sudan has an obligation to co-operate with the court.



Moving forward, what do you think are the most important areas for the ICC to address, not only to fulfill its mandate but also ensure and egalitarian and transparent process?

First of all, what is important for this court is to be able to get results, to do trials, to do proceedings and to issue decisions. Without that, the court cannot show how it is functioning and this can affect the perception of the court. For example, if you don’t have a trial, if you cannot show how the court works…we have the example of the Lubanga trial, which was an occasion to show how the court protects the rights of the accused. When we had a problem with the lack of disclosure from the Prosecutor to the defense, the trial chamber decided not to proceed and to suspend the proceedings. If we have no proceedings we cannot show the world how the ICC is functioning; protecting the fairness of the trial and the proceedings, protecting the rights of the accused, protecting the rights of the victims which, in the Lubanga trial we have ninety-three victims admitted to participate and everyone can see that they have counsel in the courtroom assisting and protecting the interests of the victims.

So the most important thing for the court is to show the world how the functions of the court are exercised. And to demonstrate this we need co-operation…this is the most serious challenge because we depend on the state. We cannot arrest suspects ourselves, for this we need the co-operation of the state and the co-operation of individuals. This is fundamental. It is the states that have the authority to execute this jurisdiction and individuals can support, and through sufficient knowledge of the court, can [compel the state to act]. In this situation it will be most difficult for the state to delay or refuse co-operation with the court. This is what many NGO’s are doing! Each individual is necessary for this, not only the authorities. Journalists have a very important role to play helping us to inform the public and make this court properly known. Not the misinformation that damages the court but with correct information and knowledge of the functions and limitations of the court, because many individuals may not know their own rights to participate as victims in the proceedings. How to bring this information to all interested individuals is the challenge. And it is a challenge that can be faced not only with the resources of the court but also with the help of civilian society.