Is the ICC corrupted and unfair ?
UN WATCH
I can respond to Mr Theodoor on the last paragraph regarding the Ivorians desperation to know what era;;y went on during during the post election crisis in 2010-2011. Well in all honesty most Ivorians know exactly what happened during the crisis which as matter of fact is still on day .The point is rather to expose the truth to the whole world about what era;;y happened and this was once unwittingly stated during a speech of Mrs Susan Rice at the UN trying to explain that the Russian and Chinese veto to oppose the resolution of the invasion of Syria was based on the fact that these 2 SC permanent members have Libya and Ivory Coast as proof of economical interest rather than real willingness to establish democracy . She went on to say that the case in Ivory Coast was different and could be compared to the Syrian issue because in Ivory Coast a president(HEM Laurent Gbagbo ) was elected democratically by the people but the UN decided that he was not the right persom and overthrew him by a putsch (French and UN troops ) strangely the video has disappeared from the net, In one word the Ivorians know about the truth they simply want the world to know about it as well that's why they have been marching all over Europe for the last 6 years to make us aware but no one seem to listen to them so the ICC which they do not respect and trust was the last alternative to expose the truth but then again this organ is proving them right by her attitude, Furthermore we can the ICC going even beyond unfairness equating to corruption . For instance at the allegations of war crimes in Iraq by British forces here is what was concluded " The Office paid particularly close attention to allegations concerning the targeting of civilians or
“clearly excessive” attacks.94 In that context, a war crime, as defined by the Rome Statute, only
occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians or an attack is launched on a
military objective with the knowledge that incidental civilian injuries would clearly be excessive
relative to the anticipated military advantage.95 The Office found that the available information
established that a considerable number of civilians died or were injured during military
operations.96 However, it believed that the information failed to either sufficiently prove or
disprove that (1) there were any intentional attacks on civilians; (2) the attacks were clearly
excessive in relation to military objectives; and (3) nationals of States Parties were involved in
the attacks.97 These gaps in intelligence led the Office to seek out still more information about the
alleged crimes.98
Additional information provided by the United Kingdom stated that lists of potential targets were
identified in advance; commanders were aware of the need to comply with international
humanitarian law; detailed computer modeling was used in assessing targets; target approval was
subject to political and legal oversight; and collateral damage assessments were sent back to
headquarters.99 In addition, the United Kingdom claimed that nearly 85% of the weapons released
by U.K. aircraft were precision-guided, which, to the Prosecutor, evinced an intent to minimize
casualties.100
The Office continued to examine several incidents in detail until it felt it had exhausted all measures “appropriate during the analysis phase.” 101 Ultimately, the Prosecutor concluded that the available information did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the
91 Id. at 2. 92 Id.
93 Id. at 3.
94 See OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, supra note 75, at 4. See also Rome Statute, Art. 8(2) (defining war crimes to include “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population” and “intentionally launching an attack with knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss ... which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated).
95 See id. See also Rome Statute, Arts. 8(2)(b)(i), 8(2)(b)(iv). 96 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, supra note 75, at 6.
97 Id.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Id. at 7.
101 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, supra note 75, at 7." Notice no arrest was made during the investigations and worse the was UN and French troops who launched several attacks on a military objective with the knowledge that incidental civilian injuries would clearly be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage.9
This was perpetrated during the 2010-2011 post election crisis by UN-French joint forces and even worse in 2006 when the same French troops fired missile from Helicopters on civilians marching then later fired at close range on others who volunteered to ber a human shield protecting their democratically elected president. No investigations no arrest despite the proofs yet this would had saturated the news if it was in GAZA or Israeli soldiers repressing terrorists. There are many reasons why anyone in his/her right mind does not respect or trust the ICC .
The Office continued to examine several incidents in detail until it felt it had exhausted all measures “appropriate during the analysis phase.” 101 Ultimately, the Prosecutor concluded that the available information did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the
91 Id. at 2. 92 Id.
93 Id. at 3.
94 See OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, supra note 75, at 4. See also Rome Statute, Art. 8(2) (defining war crimes to include “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population” and “intentionally launching an attack with knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss ... which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated).
95 See id. See also Rome Statute, Arts. 8(2)(b)(i), 8(2)(b)(iv). 96 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, supra note 75, at 6.
97 Id.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Id. at 7.
101 OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR, supra note 75, at 7." Notice no arrest was made during the investigations and worse the was UN and French troops who launched several attacks on a military objective with the knowledge that incidental civilian injuries would clearly be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage.9