Military

09 February 2005

African Union Tribunal Proposed for War Crimes in Darfur

U.S. suggests alternative to ICC for prosecution of violators

By Judy Aita
Washington File United Nations Correspondent

United Nations -- Senior U.S. officials have been meeting with members of the Security Council to work out a way to bring to trial those accused of human rights abuses and war crimes in Darfur.

U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper says that he and other council members are discussing the merits of various proposals, but the most important issue is "to recognize that response is needed now to ensure effective accountability."

"The key is to stop the violence, the killing," Prosper told journalists after a private meeting with council members.  "We know that it's hard to pursue justice when people are continuing to be killed and there's an unstable environment.  We've seen that in other parts of the world.

"So the immediate task for the Security Council is to take the measures required to end violence and then we'll be in a position to deal with the justice questions, [and] a timetable," the ambassador said.

The United States has proposed a "Sudan Tribunal," created and mandated by a U.N. Security Council resolution and administered by the U.N. in conjunction with the African Union (AU).  The tribunal would have the authority to prosecute those individuals held responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Darfur from January 1, 2003, to the present.

The proposed tribunal, U.S. officials said, would allow the AU to continue its leadership role while the issue of the accountability for war crimes is pursued by other agencies.  It also would contribute to the development of the African Union's overall judicial capacity on the continent.

The African Union is playing a key role in Sudan, with 3,000 troops deployed in the Darfur region to monitor the cease-fire agreement and active engagement in trying to find a political solution to the crisis.

On January 31 the Security Council received a report from the five-member International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, which was appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the request of the council to look into reports of genocide and other war crimes.  The commission concluded that crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed that "may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."

"A body of reliable information indicates that war crimes may have been committed on a large scale, at times even as part of a plan or a policy," the commission said.  "There is also a wealth of credible material which suggests that criminal acts were committed as part of widespread or systematic attacks directed against the civilian population" which may "amount to crimes against humanity."

The commission emphasized that the attacks, killings, rape, pillaging, and forced displacement continued while its investigation was going on and said that "action must be taken urgently" to end the violations.

The commission turned over the names of alleged perpetrators and corroborating evidence to international authorities for prosecution.  The names are in a sealed file that the commission gave to the secretary-general with the recommendation that it be handed over to "a competent prosecutor" such as the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

The Sudanese justice system "is unable and unwilling to address the situation in Darfur," the commission added.

In remarks to the Security Council February 8, Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha said that his government is committed and has the will to prosecute those accused of atrocities or human rights violations and "the Sudanese judiciary is professional enough and able to do justice."

The United States, which is not a party to the Rome Statute that created the ICC, is confident that there are more suitable alternatives for prosecuting those accused of committing war crimes in Darfur, State Department officials said.

The so-called "Sudan Tribunal" would be more appropriate than the ICC in this case because it takes full account of and reinforces the AU role in addressing the Darfur conflict, they said.

Under the U.S. proposal the tribunal would be based in Arusha, Tanzania.  It would share the existing physical infrastructure the Security Council created for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda but would have its own judges, registrar, prosecutor, and other personnel appointed by Secretary-General Annan in coordination with the AU.

U.S. officials point out that the ICC has a limited presence in Africa and its staff is now occupied with investigations in Uganda and Congo.  The Rwanda Tribunal, in contrast, has extensive infrastructure on the ground and established relationship agreements with governments throughout the continent, and thus there would be no significant difference in cost between the additional costs incurred by the ICC and the U.N./AU court.

(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)