first statement of the International Criminal Court focuses on the failure of the prosecutor - who have never entered into without the firm hand of the presiding judge
With three months to serve his sentence of nine years as a prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo, has finally got his first conviction. Thomas Lubanga pleaded guilty of conscripting or enlisting children under 15 years and using them to participate actively in hostilities.
Moreno-Ocampo, will hold a press conference on Thursday and, in fact, we say Lubanga's conviction will send a warning to other war criminals. If yes, is a message that has not yet reached the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Other tyrants, including Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, appeared equally without regard to the International Criminal Court. Even Bosco Ntaganda, Lubanga codefendants, openly living in eastern Congo without fear of arrest, according to Human Rights Watch.
Without dismissing the importance of crime Lubanga - the recruitment of children by rebel leaders must have a lifelong impact on all stakeholders, apart from making legitimate military targets, while are in uniform - which can hardly be considered the gravest crime in the Rome Statute of the ICC.
Moreno Ocampo was right to choose a relatively simple case, since their first prosecutions. However, the extraordinary length of time taken in this judgment now, and is at least a couple of months off, regardless of any appeal - demonstrates the weaknesses of the model of the ICC, and failure own lawyer
research Moreno-Ocampo opened in 2004. Lubanga was arrested on charges other in 2005 and was detained for seven years, which no doubt reflect his judgment.
was surrendered to the ICC in 2006, when the prison began his confirmation hearings. The case was sent to trial in early 2007, but was arrested the following year, because the prosecutor failed to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence.After a challenge by the prosecutor, the trial began in early 2009. Difficulties were encountered again when the victims, who were, as expected, represented in the proceedings - apply additional charges brought against the accused. The action was dismissed, but only on appeal. The trial was stopped for the second time in 2010 due to the refusal of the prosecution to disclose the name of one of the intermediates of its witnesses. Again, the judgment was reinstated on appeal. No wonder, therefore, that the judgment ran to 600 pages. There was little that the court could say a system that allows victims an active role in the weakening of its discretion. Victims are likely to want loaded as possible to be worn, prosecutors should limit the burden at trial to manage and sometimes may accept a guilty plea to lesser charges to avoid the risk and expense of a contested hearing. The two interests are related to conflicts. However, the three judges, headed by Sir Adrian Fulford, were very critical of the prosecutor's decision to delegate its investigative responsibilities to local intermediaries, human rights activists, mainly, whose work was to locate former child soldiers. Some were alleged by the defense team bribed witnesses. The court continued: