Views

The Syrian Arab Republic is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. Therefore, the International Criminal Court can not prosecute its citizens unless it receives a notification from the UN Security Council.
This is what happened when Russia and China on May 22, 2014 used a double veto against a European proposal in this regard.
It is strange that this week, a group of the Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Qatar, is making a complaint before this court.
In fact, in September last year, the International Criminal Court (ICC) filed a complaint against Myanmar military leaders, accusing them of crimes that prompted the Rohingyas to flee the country, although Myanmar is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.
However, since the Rohingya had fled to Bangladesh, and since that country was a signatory to the Rome Statute, the Court had declared that it had jurisdiction to consider the case, a strange logic.
According to the same logic, Britain’s lawyer Rodney Dickson argues that Syrian prosecutors have been forced to flee to Jordan, a signatory to the Rome Statute, and therefore the court should infiltrate through this loophole and declare that it has jurisdiction.
These two cases gave China, Russia and the United States the right to refuse to sign the Rome Statute. These three countries, along with Syria, condemned a situation in which an international treaty could apply to countries that had not signed it.
According to these States, this breach constitutes a violation of the principle of sovereignty provided for in the Vienna Convention on the Treaties of 1969.
The idea of ​​Qatar’s lawyer is simply that: Since Syria does not recognize the ICC, it will not allow its senior officials to defend themselves, which means that they can be sentenced in absentia. Here, the complainants, and any British lawyer, intend to use the fifty-five thousand photographs in the “Caesar Report” to convict President Bashar al-Assad of “crimes against humanity.”
It is the same logic used by the US ambassador to Beirut, Jeffrey Feltman, when he supported the establishment of an international investigation mission headed by Prosecutor Detlev Mehlis and then the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
The court was about to pronounce a verdict on President al-Assad’s conviction if the false testimony was not disclosed in the case file.
The ICC is hated in Africa. This judicial institution, funded mainly by the European Union, has for many years condemned African leaders who opposed European colonialism. For these reasons, four signatories withdrew, making the Court a little changed since then. In January, President Laurent Gbagbo, that France has lost the justifications it had hoped to change the regime in Ivory Coast.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is also hated in Russia, especially after the Westerners on July 29, 2015, submitted a draft resolution on the separation of Ukraine from the case of the destruction of the flight MH17 and its transfer to the ICC. It was clear that the court had jurisdiction to indict Russian President Vladimir Putin, but Russia used the veto against the draft resolution.
Thus, the ICC may now reverse the roles: to issue a judgment, on behalf of all the invaders who attacked Syria, by condemning President al-Assad, for committing the “crime” of leading the resistance against invaders in his country!

Translated from Alwatan News Syria

International Criminal Court – Al Watan Newspaper

About The Author
-

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of