COMANDANCIA DE LA OTAN (NATO) FLAGRANTEMENTE MATERIALIZA GENOCIDIO EN LA JAMAHIRIYA ÁRABE LIBIA EN AGRAVIO DEL CLAN O FAMILIA GADAFI, O GADDAFI, O QADHAFI (sic)…
NOTA: Hace unos segundos, esta opinión emitida por este ocioso tecleador apareció de nueva cuenta --como por arte de magia-- con las enmiendas que realizase el pasado dia 11; a quien lo haya permitido, sea Wikileaks, a directa petición escrita vía twitter hecha por quien escribe, o sea Google: muchas gracias, ya que es obsequio para l@s apreciables lector@s y sin fines de lucro... Conservaré el "draft" o borrador previo (con ciertas enmiendas), mismo que obra reproducido en su fecha líneas abajo para pronta referencia, por lo que han de tenerse aquí por insertos aquellos segmentos que no contradigan a la presente opinión, sino sólo aquéllas frases, oraciones, cláusulas, párrafos, citas y ligas cibernéticas que le enriquezcan, como si a la letra se insertarsen y en obvio de repeticiones innecesarias.
Sin perjuicio de los delitos que en su caso osen denunciar en contra del Gobierno encabezado por el Coronel Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi, o Muammar Al-Qadhafi, los sujetos que comandan a la OTAN (NATO) en territorio jurisdiccional de Libia (Libya) deben ser investigados y en su caso juzgados por las autoridades competentes, por inconcuso y flagrante genocidio en agravio del núcleo familiar del Coronel Gaddafi, es decir, en contra de él, de su cónyuge y descendientes, así como de sus parientes colaterales caídos en días pasados en una de sus residencias sitas en dicha latitud.
Es clara e inconcusa la voluntad criminal de dichos agentes, al querer y entender el objetivo y los resultados de sus hechos, actos y demás conductas por inexcusable omisión, cuyo objetivo y blanco (target) es el exterminio de Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi e integrantes de su clan o familia, allegados y seguidores (sic). El hecho de que agentes de la OTAN (NATO) han declarado públicamente su incertidumbre en cuanto a la existencia o no del multicitado Coronel (sic)*, ipso facto actualiza su ánimo criminal de persecución y de exterminio de quienes gocen de dicho linaje (sic). Ello, independientemente de la muerte de miembros de la sociedad civil victimizada, de seguidores del Coronel y de sus opositores caídos por tan arteros crímenes de guerra y de lesa humanidad que violan el Derecho Penal Internacional, Convenios y Tratados propios del ius gentium…
---
*)
"Tropas de la OTAN bombardean residencia de Gadafi
La redacción
MÉXICO, D.F., 10 de mayo (apro).- Tras los últimos bombardeos de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN), varios de los cuales han caído en el lugar donde reside el líder libio Muamar Gadafi, se desconoce si el dictador está vivo o muerto, dijo el brigadier general aliado Claudio Gabellini.
En rueda de prensa en Nápoles, Gabellini dijo que desconocía la situación actual de Gadafi, a quien últimamente no se le ha visto en público.
"No tenemos ninguna prueba (sobre si está vivo o muerto), no sabemos lo que Gadafi está haciendo ahora mismo. Y si les digo la verdad, no estamos realmente interesados. Nuestro mandato es proteger a los civiles amenazados por los ataques, y no miramos a individuos", manifestó el general.
Uno de los últimos bombardeos en Trípoli, capital libia y principal bastión del gobierno, impactó en una de las residencias de Gadafi y causó la muerte de su hijo menor y tres de sus nietos.
Tras ese ataque, un portavoz del gobierno afirmó que el coronel estaba vivo, pero desde entonces no ha hecho ninguna aparición pública.
Según el funcionario de la OTAN, aviones aliados volvieron a atacar la noche del lunes y la madrugada de este martes varios centros de mando y control del régimen libio, pero no detalló si éstos afectaron la residencia de Gadafi.
Insistió en que los objetivos de las bombas de la OTAN son militares y que cada ataque es “necesario, legal y moral”, y se lleva a cabo de forma tal que se minimicen los daños colaterales.
No obstante, una fuente del servicio de ambulancias en la línea, citada por AFP, indicó que en los ataques que se efectuaron entre Ajdabiya y Bengasi murieron al menos seis rebeldes y alrededor de 10 más resultaron heridos.
Es posible que los seguidores de Gadafi hayan tenido muchas bajas, agregó la fuente.
En tanto, en el occidente del país los rebeldes avanzaron unos 15 kilómetros al oeste de Misrata, levantaron barricadas y se acercaron a Zliten, ciudad que se encuentra a aproximadamente 150 kilómetros de Trípoli.
De continuar así, las fuerzas rebeldes podrían llegar este miércoles a las puertas de Zliten, dijo un ex coronel del ejército, Haj Mohamed, después de la toma de la localidad de Burqueya.
El avance, dijo, también dependerá de la eficacia de los bombardeos de la Alianza Atlántica.
Por separado, la secretaria adjunta de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) encargada de los Asuntos Humanitarios, Valerie Amos, indicó que el conflicto, la destrucción de la infraestructura del país y la escasez de dinero y gasolina “causan serios problemas a la población libia”.
En los próximos meses, advirtió, la situación tendrá un impacto grave sobre la población, esencialmente sobre los más pobres y vulnerables.
Amos destacó que en Misrata algunos no tienen alimentos, agua u otros productos de primera necesidad, además de que las unidades médicas necesitan material y personal calificado.
Según estimaciones de organismos defensores de derechos humanos, 746 mil personas han huido del país, cinco mil están bloqueados en las fronteras con Egipto, Túnez y Níger, y 50 mil más se encuentran en campamentos improvisados al este de Libia.
Además, según el Alto Comisionado de la ONU para los Refugiados (ACNUR), alrededor de 50 mil refugiados libios han pasado por el sur de Túnez desde hace un mes.
El organismo también reportó que cientos de inmigrantes que huyen de los combates se han ahogado en aguas del Mediterráneo, aunque no ofreció una cifra exacta de las víctimas.
"Estamos muy preocupados por lo que está ocurriendo en el mar Mediterráneo, donde estamos teniendo noticias de muchas muertes debido a embarcaciones que vuelcan. Desgraciadamente no conocemos el balance completo de víctimas", señaló la portavoz de ACNUR, Melissa Fleming.
Uno de los últimos accidentes de ese tipo ocurrió la semana pasada, cuando un barco con 500 o 600 personas se hundió cerca de Trípoli mientras trataba de llegar a la isla italiana de Lampedusa.
No se precisó cuántas personas murieron ahogadas pero, según Fleming, hasta el 25 de marzo, al menos 800 personas que trataron de huir de Libia –la mayoría de ellas inmigrantes de origen subsahariano--no consiguieron llegar a salvo.
Por esa razón, tanto la ACNUR como la Organización Internacional para las Migraciones (OIM) pidieron a los barcos aliados que se encuentran en el Mediterráneo, poner especial atención sobre las embarcaciones sobrecargadas que detecten, y dar la señal de alarma inmediatamente cuando estén en problemas.
"Reiteramos nuestro llamamiento a los países europeos a que pongan en marcha urgentemente mecanismos más fiables y efectivos para el rescate en el mar Mediterráneo", dijo la portavoz de ACNUR, quien destacó que los guardacostas italianos y malteses no pueden solos con la carga."
---
---
United Nations
Security Council
SC/10187/Rev.1**
---
Press Release: 04.05.2011
"The Office of the Prosecutor will request an arrest warrant against three individuals in the first Libya case. Judges will decide.
ICC-CPI-20110504-PR659 "
---
"Libya: ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo seeks warrants
04 May 11 11:16 ET"
---
"Fact Sheet: UN Security Council Resolution 1970, Libya Sanctions"
---
"LIBYA: Human rights lawyer on Kadafi warrant impact on Arab Spring - Los Angeles Times
 The Guardian (blog) |
Los Angeles Times
After the International Criminal Court prosecutor's requested arrest warrants for Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, son Seif Islam and brother-in-law Abdullah Sanussi for crimes against humanity, Babylon & Beyond spoke with Widney Brown, a human rights ... LIBYA: Human rights lawyer on Kadafi warrant impact on Arab SpringAfter the International Criminal Court prosecutor's requested arrest warrants for Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, son Seif Islam and brother-in-law Abdullah Sanussi for crimes against humanity, Babylon & Beyond spoke with Widney Brown, a human rights lawyer and senior director for international law and policy at Amnesty International in London. She helped lobby for passage of the ICC's Rome Statute in 1988 that covers such warrants. Q: How significant is the prosecutor's request for these ICC warrants? A: It’s a good sign that being a head of state is not seen as a protection against having a warrant issued when there are signs you have broken the law. Q: But how effective are these warrants, given that other embattled leaders -- for instance, President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir in Sudan -- have had warrants issued against them and remained in power, traveling the world without being arrested? A: [Bashir's] world has definitely gotten smaller. But it is distressing to see the number of countries that seem very happy they don’t have to arrest him. He’s being very careful about where he’s going. It’s not a good sign that you can have an outstanding warrant for a year and nothing’s been done. Q: The warrant for Kadafi would only cover crimes committed since the current conflict began Feb. 15. Could past crimes be included, too? A: What you have also with Col. Kadafi is not only the crimes he is alleged to have committed in the conflict now, but the crimes he committed in the past, some of which are ongoing. The prosecutor might be able to look at ongoing crimes. It’s not as if there’s going to be a dearth of things to investigate. Q: What would be considered "ongoing crimes?" A: For instance, enforced disappearances. Q: Would that be similar to those disappeared in South America's "dirty wars" in the 1970s? A: Yes, like in South America's dirty wars. That was when the term was created, when governments found it very effective to disappear people. Quite frankly, that’s what’s happening in Syria now. Why they’re being rounded up is pretextual or illegal. They’re being held incommunicado, they don’t have lawyers and we think they’re being subjected to torture and disappeared into a black hole. Things are worse now in Syria than they were in Libya when they made the Kadafi referral. Q: So you and Amnesty officials think the ICC should pursue warrants against Syrian officials as well? A: For the ICC to maintain its legitimacy, it needs to maintain its consistency and not irreparably politicize justice. We have called on the ICC to make a referral on Syria, to refer the situation to the prosecutor. Q: Why Syria and not other countries in the region, such as Bahrain, Yemen or Egypt? A: When the military is really turning on civilians in a systematic way, that certainly is a trigger to say this could be crimes against humanity. It’s not to say we’re not looking at evidence we’re gathering in places like Yemen, Bahrain and northern Iraq to see what evidence there is. All these countries didn’t ratify the Rome Statute. So you want to go to the U.N. with really good evidence. You don't want it to be a case where they cannot defend their own actions in terms of making the referral. Q: How many countries in the region have not ratified the Rome Statute that allows for these warrants to be issued? A: The only country that ratified it in the Middle East was Jordan. Egypt and Tunisia have said they will, but they have not deposited instruments of ratification with the U.N. yet. The interim Egyptian authorities have also said they will investigate and prosecute those responsible for crimes during the revolution. Q: But how can you guarantee they will investigate fairly when a new president has not even been elected? A: If it turns out that the investigation is a sham, then you revisit the case and try to get it before the International Criminal Court. People have a gut feeling that justice is a local concept. They want justice in their own countries and you want to support that. In Egypt, for instance, you want to build a credible justice system because then if they do it right, you’ve helped rebuild a critical institution. -- Molly Hennessy-Fiske in Cairo Photo: A man looks at portraits of people who killed or disappeared under Moammar Kadafi's regime in Benghazi, Libya, on Monday. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, announced Monday that he would seek arrest warrants against the Libyan leader, son Seif Islam and the country's intelligence chief on charges of crimes against humanity. Credit: Rodrigo Abd /Associated Press. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/05/after-the-international-criminal-court-prosecutors-requested-arrest-warrants-for-libyan-leader-moamar-kadafi-son-seif-al-isl.html NATO Airstrikes Pound Gadhafi StrongholdABC News New explosions rattle Tripoli as prosecutor seeks Gadhafi's arrestCNN International Pressure mounts on GaddafiWashington Post AllAfrica.com -New York Times -Voice of America all 3,446 news articles » " |
http://www.zimbio.com/Libya/articles/IbRHaXy2Oj7/LIBYA+Human+rights+lawyer+Kadafi+warrant+impact
"ICC chief prosecutor cites strong proof of Libya crimes against humanity
03 May 2011 23:03 | Source: reuters // Louis Charbonneau
Libyan refugees, who fled unrest in Libya, walk at the Libyan and Tunisian border crossing of Dehiba May 1, 2011. REUTERS/Anis Mili
By Louis Charbonneau
NEW YORK, May 2 (Reuters) - International Criminal Court investigators have proof that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces committed crimes against humanity, and the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said on Monday he would soon ask for up to five arrest warrants.
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously in February to refer Gaddafi's violent crackdown against anti-government demonstrators to The Hague-based ICC and Moreno-Ocampo said his first recommendations for indictments should reach ICC judges within weeks.
"We have strong evidence on the beginning of the conflict, the shooting of civilians," he told Reuters in an interview, noting that killing unarmed civilians would qualify as a crime against humanity.
"Also, we have strong evidence of the crime of persecution," he said. This includes "massive arrests and torture of people, and some forced disappearances ... (for) talking to journalists or going to demonstrations."
Without giving precise details of his proof, Moreno-Ocampo said "for these two crimes we have a lot of evidence." He plans to brief the Security Council on his probe on Wednesday.
Once Moreno-Ocampo makes his recommendations to the ICC's pretrial chamber, the judges must decide whether there are sufficient grounds to issue arrest warrants.
Moreno-Ocampo said he would initially ask for up to five arrest warrants, but disclosed no names.
It is not clear whether NATO would be involved in the implementation of any future warrants. The Security Council has a mandate to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. Enforcing ICC warrants would require it to target individuals for capture and transfer them to The Hague.
Permanent veto-wielding council members Russia and China have become increasingly critical of the U.N.-backed intervention to protect civilians in Libya. U.N. diplomats say Moscow and Beijing have complained privately and publicly that the operation is targeting Gaddafi and his family.
RAPE AS WEAPON?
The ICC is also looking at the rebel camp, which has been fighting Gaddafi's forces since February in what is now a full-scale civil war that Western officials say is deadlocked.
Moreno-Ocampo said the court was probing allegations that the rebels attacked black Africans in Libya, whom they assumed to be mercenaries aiding Gaddafi's forces. Western officials and Libyan rebels have said that nationals from Chad, Niger and other African states have been among the mercenaries in Libya.
The rebels have pledged to cooperate with the ICC, Moreno-Ocampo said, while Gaddafi's government has not responded to the court's requests for information.
ICC investigators are also looking into allegations that Gaddafi's forces have used rape as a weapon.
As part of the investigation of alleged rapes, Moreno-Ocampo said, the ICC is looking at allegations that some of Gaddafi's soldiers have been issued packets of the popular anti-impotence drug Viagra from Pfizer Inc.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice brought the Viagra charge up in a meeting of the Security Council last week, council diplomats said.
If it were true that Gaddafi's troops were being issued Viagra, diplomats said, it could indicate they were being encouraged by their commanders to engage in rape to terrorize the population in areas that have supported the rebels.
"We are trying to confirm this public announcement through evidence so it can stand in court," Moreno-Ocampo said. "In some other conflicts you have had some battalions that are just devoted to rape."
He said the ICC was investigating other alleged war crimes charges against Gaddafi's forces, including the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. (Editing by Christopher Wilson)"
http://m.trust.org/trustlaw/news/icc-chief-prosecutor-cites-strong-proof-of-libya-crimes-against-humanity
Just for quick reference:
"States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Court can automatically exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party or by a national of a State Party. States Parties must co-operate with the Court, including surrendering suspects when requested to do so by the Court.
States Parties are entitled to participate and vote in proceedings of the Assembly of States Parties, which is the Court's governing body.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] States Parties
As of March 2011, 114 states have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute.[7] The States Parties are shown in alphabetical order according to their official name within the Assembly of States Parties.[8]State Party | Signed | Ratified or acceded | Entered into force |
|---|---|---|---|
 Afghanistan | — | February 10, 2003 | May 1, 2003 |
 Albania | July 18, 1998 | January 31, 2003 | May 1, 2003 |
 Andorra | July 18, 1998 | April 30, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Antigua and Barbuda | October 23, 1998 | June 18, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Argentina | January 8, 1999 | February 8, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Australia | December 9, 1998 | July 1, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 Austria | October 7, 1998 | December 28, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Bangladesh | September 16, 1999 | March 23, 2010 | June 1, 2010 |
 Barbados | September 8, 2000 | December 10, 2002 | March 1, 2003 |
 Belgium | September 10, 1998 | June 28, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Belize | April 5, 2000 | April 5, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Benin | September 24, 1999 | January 22, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Bolivia | July 17, 1998 | June 27, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 Bosnia and Herzegovina | July 17, 1998 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Botswana | September 8, 2000 | September 8, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Brazil | February 7, 2000 | June 20, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 Bulgaria | February 11, 1999 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Burkina Faso | November 30, 1998 | April 16, 2004 | July 1, 2004 |
 Burundi | January 13, 1999 | September 21, 2004 | December 1, 2004 |
 Cambodia | October 23, 2000 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Canada | December 18, 1998 | July 7, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Central African Republic | December 12, 1999 | October 3, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Chad | October 20, 1999 | November 1, 2006 | January 1, 2007 |
 Chile | September 11, 1998 | June 29, 2009 | September 1, 2009 |
 Colombia[A] | December 10, 1998 | August 5, 2002 | November 1, 2002 |
 Comoros | September 22, 2000 | August 18, 2006 | November 1, 2006 |
 Congo | July 17, 1998 | May 3, 2004 | August 1, 2004 |
 Cook Islands | — | July 18, 2008 | October 1, 2008 |
 Costa Rica | October 7, 1998 | June 7, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Croatia | October 12, 1998 | May 21, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Cyprus | October 15, 1998 | March 7, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Czech Republic | April 13, 1999 | July 21, 2009 | October 1, 2009 |
 Democratic Republic of the Congo | September 8, 2000 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Denmark[B] | September 25, 1998 | June 21, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Djibouti | October 7, 1998 | November 5, 2002 | February 1, 2003 |
 Dominica | — | February 12, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Dominican Republic | September 8, 2000 | May 12, 2005 | August 1, 2005 |
 Ecuador | October 7, 1998 | February 5, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Estonia | December 27, 1999 | January 30, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Fiji | November 29, 1999 | November 29, 1999 | July 1, 2002 |
 Finland | October 7, 1998 | December 29, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 France[C] | July 18, 1998 | June 9, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Gabon | December 22, 1998 | September 20, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Gambia | December 4, 1998 | June 28, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 Georgia | July 18, 1998 | September 5, 2003 | December 1, 2003 |
 Germany | December 10, 1998 | December 11, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Ghana | July 18, 1998 | December 20, 1999 | July 1, 2002 |
 Greece | July 18, 1998 | May 15, 2002 | August 1, 2002 |
 Guinea | September 7, 2000 | July 14, 2003 | October 1, 2003 |
 Guyana | December 28, 2000 | September 24, 2004 | December 1, 2004 |
 Honduras | October 7, 1998 | July 1, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 Hungary | January 15, 1999 | November 30, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Iceland | August 26, 1998 | May 25, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Ireland | October 7, 1998 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Italy | July 18, 1998 | July 26, 1999 | July 1, 2002 |
 Japan | — | July 17, 2007 | October 1, 2007 |
 Jordan | October 7, 1998 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Kenya | August 11, 1999 | March 15, 2005 | June 1, 2005 |
 Latvia | April 22, 1999 | June 28, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 Lesotho | November 30, 1998 | September 6, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Liberia | July 17, 1998 | September 22, 2004 | December 1, 2004 |
 Liechtenstein | July 18, 1998 | October 2, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Lithuania | December 10, 1998 | May 12, 2003 | August 1, 2003 |
 Luxembourg | October 13, 1998 | September 8, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Madagascar | July 18, 1998 | March 14, 2008 | June 1, 2008 |
 Malawi | March 2, 1999 | September 19, 2002 | December 1, 2002 |
 Mali | July 17, 1998 | August 16, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Malta | July 17, 1998 | November 29, 2002 | February 1, 2003 |
 Marshall Islands | September 6, 2000 | December 7, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Mauritius | November 11, 1998 | March 5, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Mexico | September 7, 2000 | October 28, 2005 | January 1, 2006 |
 Mongolia | December 29, 2000 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Montenegro[D] | — | October 23, 2006 | June 3, 2006 |
 Namibia | October 27, 1998 | June 25, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 Nauru | December 13, 2000 | November 12, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Netherlands | July 18, 1998 | July 17, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 New Zealand[E] | October 7, 1998 | September 7, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Niger | July 17, 1998 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Nigeria | June 1, 2000 | September 27, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Norway | August 28, 1998 | February 16, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Panama | July 18, 1998 | March 21, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Paraguay | October 7, 1998 | May 14, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Peru | December 7, 2000 | November 10, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Poland | April 9, 1999 | November 12, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Portugal | October 7, 1998 | February 5, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Republic of Korea | March 8, 2000 | November 13, 2002 | February 1, 2003 |
 Republic of Moldova | September 8, 2000 | October 12, 2010 | January 1, 2011 |
 Romania | July 7, 1999 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Saint Kitts and Nevis | — | August 22, 2006 | November 1, 2006 |
 Saint Lucia | August 27, 1999 | August 18, 2010 | November 1, 2010 |
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | — | December 3, 2002 | March 1, 2003 |
 Samoa | July 17, 1998 | September 16, 2002 | December 1, 2002 |
 San Marino | July 18, 1998 | May 13, 1999 | July 1, 2002 |
 Senegal | July 18, 1998 | February 2, 1999 | July 1, 2002 |
 Serbia | December 19, 2000 | September 6, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Seychelles | December 28, 2000 | August 10, 2010 | November 1, 2010 |
 Sierra Leone | October 17, 1998 | September 15, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Slovakia | December 23, 1998 | April 11, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Slovenia | October 7, 1998 | December 31, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 South Africa | July 17, 1998 | November 27, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Spain | July 18, 1998 | October 24, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Suriname | — | July 15, 2008 | October 1, 2008 |
 Sweden | October 7, 1998 | June 28, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Switzerland | July 18, 1998 | October 12, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 Tajikistan | November 30, 1998 | May 5, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia | October 7, 1998 | March 6, 2002 | July 1, 2002 |
 Timor-Leste | — | September 6, 2002 | December 1, 2002 |
 Trinidad and Tobago | March 23, 1999 | April 6, 1999 | July 1, 2002 |
 Uganda | March 17, 1999 | June 14, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 United Kingdom | November 30, 1998 | October 4, 2001 | July 1, 2002 |
 United Republic of Tanzania | December 29, 2000 | August 20, 2002 | November 1, 2002 |
 Uruguay | December 19, 2000 | June 28, 2002 | September 1, 2002 |
 Venezuela | October 14, 1998 | June 7, 2000 | July 1, 2002 |
 Zambia | July 17, 1998 | November 13, 2002 | February 1, 2003 |
[edit] Resentment in Africa
Several African countries, including Comoros, Djibouti, and Senegal called on African States Parties to withdraw en masse from the statute in protest at allegations that the Court targets Africa and specifically at the indictment of Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir.[9][edit] Implementing legislation
The Rome Statute obliges States Parties to cooperate with the court in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, including the arrest and surrender of suspects.[10] Part 9 of the Statute requires all States Parties to “ensure that there are procedures available under their national law for all of the forms of cooperation which are specified under this Part”.[11]Under the Rome Statute's complementarity principle, the court only has jurisdiction over cases where the relevant State is unwilling or unable to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute the case itself. Therefore many States Parties have implemented national legislation to provide for the investigation and prosecution of crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the court.[12]
As of April 2006, the following states had enacted or drafted implementing legislation:[13]
| Countries | Complementarity legislation | Co-operation legislation |
|---|---|---|
| Australia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom | Enacted | Enacted |
| Colombia, Congo, Serbia, Montenegro | Enacted | Draft |
| Burundi, Costa Rica, Mali, Niger, Portugal | Enacted | None |
| France, Norway, Peru, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland | Draft | Enacted |
| Austria, Japan, Latvia, Romania | None | Enacted |
| Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Samoa, Senegal, Uganda, Uruguay, Zambia | Draft | Draft |
| Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Honduras, Hungary, Jordan, Panama, Venezuela | Draft | None |
| Mexico | None | Draft |
| Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Liberia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sierra Leone, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, United Republic of Tanzania | None | None |
[edit] Summary of signatures and ratifications
| Date | Signatures |
| December 31, 1998 | 72 |
| December 31, 1999 | 93 |
| December 31, 2000 | 139 |
| Date | Ratifications |
| December 31, 1998 | 0 |
| December 31, 1999 | 6 |
| December 31, 2000 | 27 |
| December 31, 2001 | 48 |
| December 31, 2002 | 87 |
| December 31, 2003 | 92 |
| December 31, 2004 | 97 |
| December 31, 2005 | 100 |
| December 31, 2006 | 104 |
| December 31, 2007 | 105 |
| December 31, 2008 | 108 |
| December 31, 2009 | 110 |
| December 31, 2010 | 114 |
[edit] Acceptance of jurisdiction
Pursuant to article 12(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a state that is not a party to the Statute may, "by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question." The state that does so is not a State Party to the Statute, but the Statute is in force for the state as if it had ratified the Statute. However, a state that lodges an article 12(3) declaration cannot refer a situation to the Court. This means that the Prosecutor can only open an official investigation after a State Party or the United Nations Security Council refer the situation to the Court. Alternatively, the Prosecutor can open an investigation after a Pre-Trial Chamber gives its consent to do so, but only after it is presented with preliminary evidence.To date, the Court has only made public two article 12(3) declarations.
| State | Date of acceptance | Start of jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
 Côte d'Ivoire[F] | October 1, 2003 | September 19, 2002 |
 Palestine[G] | January 22, 2009 | July 1, 2002 |
[edit] Signatories
Of the 139 states that had signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 34 have not ratified the treaty.[7]| State | Signature |
|---|---|
 Algeria | December 28, 2000 |
 Angola | October 7, 1998 |
 Armenia | October 1, 1999 |
 Bahamas | December 29, 2000 |
 Bahrain | December 11, 2000 |
 Cameroon | July 17, 1998 |
 Cape Verde | December 28, 2000 |
| Côte d'Ivoire[F] | November 30, 1998 |
 Egypt | December 26, 2000 |
 Eritrea | October 7, 1998 |
 Guinea-Bissau | September 12, 2000 |
 Haiti | February 26, 1999 |
 Iran | December 31, 2000 |
 Israel[H] | December 31, 2000 |
 Jamaica | September 8, 2000 |
 Kuwait | September 8, 2000 |
 Kyrgyzstan | December 8, 1998 |
 Monaco | July 18, 1998 |
 Morocco | September 8, 2000 |
 Mozambique | December 28, 2000 |
 Oman | December 20, 2000 |
 Philippines | December 28, 2000 |
 Russia | September 13, 2000 |
 São Tomé and Príncipe | December 28, 2000 |
 Solomon Islands | December 3, 1998 |
 Sudan[I] | September 8, 2000 |
 Syrian Arab Republic | November 29, 2000 |
 Thailand | October 2, 2000 |
 Ukraine | January 20, 2000 |
 United Arab Emirates | November 27, 2000 |
 United States of America[J] | December 31, 2000 |
 Uzbekistan | December 29, 2000 |
 Yemen | December 28, 2000 |
 Zimbabwe | July 17, 1998 |
[edit] Bahrain
The government of Bahrain originally announced in May 2006 that it would ratify the court in the session ending in July 2006.[15] By December 2006 the ratification had not yet been completed, but the Coalition for the International Criminal Court said they expected ratification in 2007.[16][edit] Cape Verde
The parliament of Cape Verde has concluded that it would be necessary to amend the constitution before the court was ratified to allow for surrender of suspects and to lift the immunity of political leaders from prosecution.[17][edit] Israel
Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed it for a short period. In 2002, the United States and Israel, "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.[18]Israel states that it has "deep sympathy" with the goals of the court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to "invent new crimes". It cites the inclusion of "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" as a war crime as an example of this, whilst at the same time disagrees with the exclusion of terrorism and drug trafficking. Israel sees the powers given to the prosecutor as excessive and the geographical appointment of judges as disadvantaging Israel which is prevented from joining any of the UN Regional Groups.[19]
[edit] Kuwait
At a conference in 2007, the Kuwaiti Bar Association and the Secretary of the National Assembly of Kuwait, Hussein Al-Hereti, called for Kuwait to join the court.[20][edit] Philippines
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has introduced a Senate resolution calling for the ratification of the Rome Statute, but this has not made progress. In August 2006 the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippines said a series of dialogues were necessary with the armed forces and police prior to ratification in light of the various ongoing insurgencies involving the New People's Army, Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.[21] In April 2008, the National Police Director said ratification would prove the country's commitment to human rights, while an Armed Forces representative said that ratification was a political decision that the army "would adhere and abide by".[22] The United States' strong influence in the country is a strong factor in the decision to delay ratification.[citation needed] EU and other governments from countries state parties to the ICC have been pressing for immediate ratification. Having met Philippine government officials, including the President, Canadian government spokesperson has been vigorously pushing for ratification in the Philippines and is leading the diplomatic delegation in this endeavor.[21][edit] Thailand
Former Senator Kraisak Choonhavan called in November 2006 for Thailand to ratify the court and to accept retrospective jurisdiction, so that former premier Thaksin Shinawatra could be investigated for crimes against humanity connected to 2,500 alleged extrajudicial killings carried out in 2003 against suspected drug dealers.[23][edit] Ukraine
In October 2006, the Ambassador to the United Nations stated that Ukraine would submit a bill to the parliament to ratify the Statute.[24] Ukraine ratified APIC without having ratified the Rome Statute on 2007-01-29.[25]. This is despite the fact that on 2001-07-11 Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled Rome Statute to be inconsistent with Constitution of Ukraine[26].[edit] United States
Main article: United States and the International Criminal Court
There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute. [27] Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment. [28] Therefore, US opponents of the ICC argue that the US Constitution in its present form does not allow a cession of judicial authority to any body other than the Supreme Court. In the view of proponents of the ICC there is no inconsistency with US Constitution, arguing that the role of the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of US law would not be disturbed. Before the Rome Statute, opposition to the ICC was largely headed by Republican Senator Jesse Helms.[29] Other objections to ratification have included that it violates international law, is a political court without appeal, denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and would violate US national sovereignty.Although the US originally voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute, President Bill Clinton unexpectedly reversed his position on 31 December 2000 and signed the treaty,[30][31] but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification.[32] On 6 May 2002, the Bush administration announced it was nullifying the United States' signature of the treaty.[33] The country's main objections are interference with their national sovereignty and a fear of politically motivated prosecutions.
In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court (exceptions granted), and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court, leading opponents to dub it the "Hague Invasion Act." The act was later modified to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC when dealing with U.S. enemies.
The U.S. has also made a number of Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs, also known as "Article 98 Agreements") with a number of countries, prohibiting the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and U.S. employees (including non-national contractors) and nationals. None of these agreements preclude the prosecution of Americans by any nation where they are believed to have committed any crime. As of 2 August 2006, the US Department of State reported that it had signed 101 of these agreements.[34] The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs.[34]
In 2002, the United States threatened to veto the renewal of all United Nations peacekeeping missions unless its troops were granted immunity from prosecution by the Court.[35] In a compromise move, the Security Council passed Resolution 1422 on 12 July 2002, granting immunity to personnel from ICC non-States Parties involved in United Nations established or authorized missions for a renewable twelve-month period.[35] This was renewed for twelve months in 2003 but the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004, after pictures emerged of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and the US withdrew its demand.[36]
[edit] Yemen
On 24 March 2007, the Yemeni parliament voted to ratify the Rome Statute.[37][38] However, some MPs claim that this vote breached parliamentary rules, and have demanded another vote. It is unclear whether parliament has the right to vote again on the issue at this stage, or whether the President will proceed with ratification despite parliament's objections.[39][40][edit] Accession states
The deadline for signing the Rome Statute expired on 31 December 2000. States that did not sign before that date have to accede to the Statute in a single step. To date, eight states — Afghanistan, Cook Islands, Dominica, East Timor, Japan, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname — have acceded to the treaty,[1] and a number of other states have taken steps to do so:[edit] Guatemala
In July 2006, the United Nations Committee Against Torture noted assurances from the government of Guatemala that "necessary steps are being taken to ratify the Rome Statute".[41][edit] Indonesia
Indonesia has stated that it supports the adoption of the Rome Statute, and that “universal participation should be the cornerstone of the International Criminal Court”.[42] In 2004, the President of Indonesia adopted a National Plan of Action on Human Rights, which states that Indonesia intends to ratify the Rome Statute in 2008.[42] This was confirmed in 2007 by Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda and the head of the Indonesian People's Representative Council's Committee on Security and International Affairs, Theo L. Sambuaga.[43][edit] Iraq
In February 2005 the Iraqi Transitional Government decided to ratify the court. However, two weeks later they reversed this decision,[44] a move that the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed was due to pressure from the United States.[45][edit] Lebanon
In March 2009, Lebanese Justice Minister said the government had decided not to join for now. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court claimed this was due in part to "intense pressure" from the United States, who feared it could result in the prosecution of Israelis in a future conflict. [46][edit] Nepal
On 25 July 2006, the Nepalese House of Representatives directed the government to ratify the Rome Statute. Under Nepalese law, this motion is compulsory for the Executive.[47][edit] Turkey
Turkey is currently a candidate country to join the European Union, which has required progress on human rights issues in order to continue with accession talks. Part of this has included pressure, but not a requirement, on Turkey to join the court which is supported under the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy.[48] Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated in October 2004 that Turkey would "soon" ratify the court,[49] and the Turkish constitution was amended in 2004 to explicitly allow nationals to be surrendered to the court.[50] However, in January 2008, the Erdoğan government reversed its position, deciding to shelve accession because of concerns it could undermine efforts against the Kurdistan Workers Party.[51][edit] The position of other states
[edit] The PRC
The People's Republic of China has opposed the court, on the basis that:- It goes against the sovereignty of nation states
- The principle of complementarity gives the court the ability to judge a nation's court system
- War crimes jurisdiction covers internal as well as international conflicts
- The court's jurisdiction covers peace-time crimes against humanity
- Inclusion of the crime of aggression weakens the role of the Security Council in this regard
- The prosecutor's right to initiate prosecutions may open the court to political influence[52]
[edit] India
The government of India has consistently opposed the court. It abstained in the vote adopting of the statute in 1998, saying it objected to:[53]- The broad definition adopted of crimes against humanity
- The right given to the Security Council to refer cases, delay investigations and bind non-State Parties.
- The use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction not being explicitly outlawed
- How the principle of complementarity would be applied to the Indian criminal justice system
- The inclusion of non-international conflicts - and hence Kashmir and other disputes within India - in the category of war crimes
- The power of the prosecutor to initiate prosecutions[54]
[edit] Pakistan
Pakistan has supported the aims of the International Court and voted for the Rome Statute in 1998. However, Pakistan has not signed the agreement on the basis of reservations.- The fact that the Statute does not provide for reservations by countries.
- The arbitrary nature of the initiations of proceedings.
- Provisional arrest; something which is against the Pakistani legal system, where a person has to be charged within 24 hours.
- Lack of immunity for heads of state.
[edit] See also
- List of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court
- European Union and the International Criminal Court
[edit] Notes
- A Colombia made use of article 124 of the Rome Statute to exempt war crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory from the jurisdiction of the Court for a period of seven years. The relevant declaration came into force with the coming into force of the Rome Statute, for Colombia, on November 1, 2002 and expired on October 31, 2009.
- B The Rome Statute did not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland until October 1, 2006 and October 1, 2004, respectively.
- C France made use of article 124 of the Rome Statute to exempt war crimes committed by its nationals or on its territory from the jurisdiction of the Court for a period of seven years. The relevant declaration came into force with the coming into force of the Rome Statute, for France, on July 1, 2002; France withdrew its declaration on August 13, 2008 with effect from June 15, 2008.[56]
- D Montenegro acceded to the Rome Statute on June 3, 2006 (the date of its independence) per a declaration it sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which was received on October 23, 2006.
- E The Rome Statute does not apply to Tokelau.
- F The Ivorian government submitted its declaration on October 1, 2003.[57] The declaration is dated April 18, 2003 and accepts the Court's jurisdiction for "acts committed on Ivorian territory since the events of 19 September 2002."[58]
- G The Palestinian National Authority submitted a declaration on January 22, 2009.[59] The declaration is dated January 21, 2009 and accepts the Court's jurisdiction for "acts committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002."[60] However, since the Palestinian territories are not universally recognized as a sovereign state, it is unclear whether the Palestinian National Authority has the power to make such a declaration.[61]
- H On August 28, 2002, Israel declared that it no longer intended to ratify the treaty and therefore no longer bears any legal obligations arising from its signature.
- I On August 26, 2008, Sudan declared that it no longer intended to ratify the treaty and therefore no longer bears any legal obligations arising from its signature.
- J On May 6, 2002, the United States of America declared that it no longer intended to ratify the treaty and therefore no longer bears any legal obligations arising from its signature.
[edit] References
- ^ a b c d United Nations Treaty Database entry regarding the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved 10 March 2010.
- ^ ICC press release on Côte d'Ivoire's acception of jurisdiction. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
- ^ The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18. Accessed 23 November 2006.
- ^ John R Bolton, 6 May 2002. International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. US Department of State. Accessed 23 November 2006.
- ^ “China's Attitude Towards the ICC”, Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005-07-06.
- ^ India and the ICC, Usha Ramanathan, Journal of International Criminal Law, 2005.
- ^ a b "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2011-03-10. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
- ^ "The States Parties to the Rome Statute". International Criminal Court. 2010-10-12. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
- ^ African ICC Members Mull Withdrawal Over Bashir Indictment, Voice of America, 2009-06-08
- ^ Amnesty International, Implementation. Accessed 2007-01-23. See also Article 86 of the Rome Statute
- ^ Part 9 of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-01-23.
- ^ [See Article 17 of the Rome Statute
- ^ Amnesty International, The International Criminal Court: Summary of draft and enacted implementing legislation. Accessed 2007-01-23.
- ^ Part II §1 Art. 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
- ^ The ratification and implementation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court in Bahrain, FIDH, 2006-07-10.
- ^ Rights push for key court pact, Gulf Daily News, 2006-12-21.
- ^ ICC-AFRICA, Coalition for the International Criminal Court, September 2006
- ^ The American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court. Ratifications & Declarations. Accessed 2006-12-04.
- ^ Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 30 June 2002. Israel and the International Criminal Court. Accessed 2002-06-30.
- ^ Lawyers urge Kuwait to become ICC member, Kuwait Times, 2007-03-26, accessed on 2007-04-05
- ^ a b JDV seeks dialogues on political killings before ratification of ICC, Balita, 2006-08-16
- ^ PNP backs Philippine ratification of int’l criminal court, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2008-04-14
- ^ War on drugs returns to bite Thaksin, Bangkok Post, 2006-11-23
- ^ Statement by Ukraine regarding the Report of the International Criminal Court, UN, 2006-10-09.
- ^ http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICC_APIClist_current.pdf
- ^ Decision of Constitutional Court of Ukraine (Ukrainian)
- ^ "Clinton's statement on war crimes court". BBC News. 2000-12-31. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1095580.stm.
- ^ http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section2
- ^ U.S. News & World Report: "The Brief for a World Court, A permanent war-crimes tribunal is coming, but will it have teeth?" By Thomas Omestad; Posted 9/28/97
- ^ Amnesty International. US Threats to the International Criminal Court. Accessed 2006-11-23.
- ^ Brett D. Schaefer, 9 January 2001. Overturning Clinton's Midnight Action on the International Criminal Court. The Heritage Foundation. Accessed 2006-11-23.
- ^ Curtis A Bradley, May 2002. U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty. The American Society of International Law. Accessed 2006-11-23.
- ^ John R Bolton, 6 May 2002. International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. US Department of State. Accessed 2006-11-23.
- ^ a b Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2006. Status of US Bilateral Immunity Acts. Accessed 2006-11-23.
- ^ a b Human Rights Watch, The ICC and the Security Council: Resolution 1422. Accessed 2007-01-11.
- ^ BBC News, 20 March 2006. Q&A: International Criminal Court. Accessed 2007-01-11.
- ^ gulfnews.com, 26 March 2007. “Yemen becomes fourth Arab country to ratify ICC statute”. Accessed 27 March 2007.
- ^ Amnesty International, 27 March 2007. Amnesty International urges Yemen to complete the ratification of the Rome Statute. Accessed 2007-04-01.
- ^ News Yemen, 8 April 2007. “Legal controversy in Parliament over ICC Rome Statute”. Accessed 2007-04-10.
- ^ gulfnews.com, 9 April 2007. “Yemen parliament recants vote for ICC”. Accessed 2007-04-10.
- ^ United Nations Committee Against Torture, 25 July 2006. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention. PDF, HTML. Accessed 2007-01-23.
- ^ a b Amnesty International, Fact sheet: Indonesia and the International Criminal Court. DOC, HTML. Accessed 2007-01-23.
- ^ RI to join global criminal court, Jakarta Post, 2007-02-11, accessed on 2007-02-11
- ^ Iraq Pulls Out Of International Criminal Court, Radio Free Europe, 2005-03-02
- ^ Groups Urge Iraq to Join International Criminal Court, Common Dreams, 2005-08-08
- ^ Justice campaigners say US urged Lebanon not to join International Criminal Court, Daily Star (Lebanon), 2009-03-12
- ^ Asian Parliamentarians’ Consultation on the Universality of the International Criminal Court, “An action plan for the Working Group of the Consultative Assembly of Parliamentarians for the ICC and the rule of law on the universality of the Rome Statute in Asia”. PDF, HTML 16 August 2006. Accessed 2007-01-23.
- ^ Council Common Position on the International Criminal Court, American Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 2003-06-13
- ^ Turkey, EU and the International Criminal Court, Journal of Turkish Weekly, 2005-04-14
- ^ Constitutional Amendments, Secretariat-General for EU Affairs (Turkey), 2004-05-10
- ^ Turkey shelves accession to world criminal court, Zaman, 2008-01-20, accessed on 2008-01-20
- ^ “China's Attitude Towards the ICC”, Lu Jianping and Wang Zhixiang, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005-07-06.
- ^ Explanation of vote on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, Embassy of India, 1998-07-17
- ^ India and the ICC, Usha Ramanathan, Journal of International Criminal Law, 2005.
- ^ http://www.amicc.org/docs/Pakistan1422Stmt12June03.pdf
- ^ See German Federal Gazzette (Bundesgesetzblatt) 2009 II, p. 38.
- ^ "Communications, Referrals and Preliminary Examinations: Côte d'Ivoire". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/C%C3%B4te+dIvoire/. Retrieved 2011-04-06.
- ^ "Declaration by the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2003-04-18. http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/7DA08D8E-FF5E-40C8-92D7-F058D5B032F3/279844/ICDEENG.pdf. Retrieved 2011-04-06.
- ^ "Communications, Referrals and Preliminary Examinations: Palestine". International Criminal Court. http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Comm+and+Ref/Palestine/. Retrieved 2011-04-06.
- ^ "Declaration by the Palestinian National Authority Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court" (PDF). International Criminal Court. 2009-01-21. http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/74EEE201-0FED-4481-95D4-C8071087102C/279777/20090122PalestinianDeclaration2.pdf. Retrieved 2011-04-06.
- ^ Simons, Marlise (2009-02-10). "War court asked to examine Gaza war". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/africa/10iht-hague.4.20086185.html. Retrieved 2011-04-06.
| |||
"Assad vendió número de teléfono satelital de Kadafi: The Telegraph"
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2012/10/01/10359418-assad-vendio-numero-de-telefono-satelital-de-kadafi-the-telegraph
---------------------------------
"El resistirse a lo irresistible no siempre fortalece a quienes se creen irresistibles, sí, a aquell@s que ‘no mandan obedeciendo a sus mandantes’… Fideiius.
"El resistirse a lo irresistible no siempre fortalece a quienes se creen irresistibles, sí, a aquell@s que ‘no mandan obedeciendo a sus mandantes’… Fideiius.
Centro de Alerta para la Defensa de los Pueblos
Investigación, análisis, documentación y denuncias sobre la injerencia y subversión contra los pueblos de América Latina
Investigación, análisis, documentación y denuncias sobre la injerencia y subversión contra los pueblos de América Latina
"Noam Chomsky*: Estados Unidos es el mayor terrorista del mundo..."
Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology*
Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology*
EEUU despilfarró miles de millones de dólares del area social de Irak
“We don’t do body counts”.- General Tommy Franks
http://www.cubadebate.cu/reflexiones-fidel/2010/08/03/emplazamiento-al-presidente-de-estados-unidos/
"Hey, bad guys: If it is certain that you in God trust, you should not be afraid, just let the music play…!”. FIDEIIUS (Fideiius).
ACCESO AL AGUA POTABLE, DECLARADO DERECHO FUNDAMENTAL: TRIUNFO DE LA HUMANIDAD A INSTANCIA DE EVO MORALES, C. PRESIDENTE CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA REPúBLICA DE BOLIVIA…
Perseguido por EEUU: Camarógrafo estadounidense que filmó imágenes del 11/9 enfrenta extradición
The Washington Post: Estados Unidos es el vergonzoso suministrador de armas al narcotráfico
*)
"Tres generaciones se han echado a perder por mi culpa: Rius"
"Tres generaciones se han echado a perder por mi culpa: Rius"
*)
"Noam Chomsky: Los cables de WikiLeaks revelan un “profundo odio a la democracia por parte de nuestra dirigencia política”
“Debemos comprender -y los Papeles del Pentágono son otro ejemplo claro- que una de las principales razones del secreto gubernamental es proteger al gobierno contra su propia población”
"Noam Chomsky: Los cables de WikiLeaks revelan un “profundo odio a la democracia por parte de nuestra dirigencia política”
“Debemos comprender -y los Papeles del Pentágono son otro ejemplo claro- que una de las principales razones del secreto gubernamental es proteger al gobierno contra su propia población”
*)
Stépahne Hessel: “No estoy aquí para testimoniar sobre lo que pasó en Chile. Estoy aquí para hablar en nombre de la evolución del derecho internacional, que siempre es demasiado lenta. Para mí este juicio representa un paso adelante porque vivimos en un mundo en el que los crímenes impunes pesan sobre la conciencia internacional” (Referida por Anne Marie Mergier en “ Sentencia implacable”
Stépahne Hessel: “No estoy aquí para testimoniar sobre lo que pasó en Chile. Estoy aquí para hablar en nombre de la evolución del derecho internacional, que siempre es demasiado lenta. Para mí este juicio representa un paso adelante porque vivimos en un mundo en el que los crímenes impunes pesan sobre la conciencia internacional” (Referida por Anne Marie Mergier en “ Sentencia implacable”
Universal Rights and Universal Values... But that is romantically substantive for those who try to ignore the Universal Jurisdiction and its procedures to evade justice... FIDEIIUS (Fideiius)
Los cables sobre México en WikiLeaks
Los cables sobre México en WikiLeaks
Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks"http://wikileaks.jornada.com.mx/
"En una extensa entrevista con 60 minutes, Julian Assange, fundador de Wikileaks, dice: “Somos activistas por la libertad de expresión. No se trata de salvar a las ballenas, se trata de darle a la gente la información que necesita para apoyar o no la caza de ballenas. ¿Por qué? Son los ingredientes crudos que se necesitan para hacer una sociedad justa. Sin ellos, simplemente estás navegando en la oscuridad”.- Julian Assange. (Tomado de 'La Jornada')
Be Traist...!
Just let the hammock swing...!
P.D.: "Agua de Coco Pa' Toch@s" *
"Once again, the cat is shaking the roof...!" *
A FREE K’
