IDPs remain priority a year after Juba talks
July 15, 2007Daily Monitor (Kampala)
One of the United Nations’ factsheets on the International Criminal Court (ICC) explains in simple terms how this Court will relate to national judicial systems. It notes that the “entire premise of the Court is based on the principle of complementarity, which means that the Court can only exercise its jurisdiction when a national court is unable or unwilling to genuinely do so itself.
“The first priority always goes to national courts. The International Criminal Court is in no way meant to replace the authority of national courts. But there may be times when a State’s court system collapses and ceases to function. Similarly, there may be governments that condone or participate in an atrocity themselves, or officials may be reluctant to prosecute someone in a position of great power and authority.
Reflect on this as we mark the first anniversary of the Juba Peace Process. Presently, the delegations of either party to the talks are carrying out a one-month consultation on what mechanisms are best suited to implementing the general principles agreed around Agenda 3. This item on the agenda deals with the sensitive issues of accountability and responsibility. Who will be held responsible for the war crimes and crimes against community that were perpetrated in the 20 years of this atrocious war?
Human Rights Watch (HRW) proposes a middle ground considering that the indicted Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) men are uncomfortable about appearing before Chief Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo. The government, seeking to bring the drawn out negotiations to an end, has meanwhile chosen to remain ambiguous about its obligations to the Rome Statute
Kampala is in a difficult position. Everybody with a conscience wants closure brought to this most unfortunate page in Uganda’s history. But the LRA’s insistence on subjecting themselves to the traditional Acholi justice system of Mato Oput is meeting some resistance.
HRW argues that justice can only be achieved outside of the ICC if certain minimum benchmarks are met, to wit; that sanctions and penalties (with imprisonment as the principal penalty) alternative to what is provided for in the ICC Rome Statute must reflect the gravity of the alleged crimes.
But Daily Monitor sticks to the humanitarian view that the matter of IDP return retains primacy. In the event, whatever combination is adopted to complement the ICC, so as to avoid condoning impunity, let us keep sight of this fact. And this is why we take a very dim view of the suspected corruption that has already be-devilled the resettlement process.
http://www.monitor.co.ug/oped/oped07141.php
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
