International Criminal Court e Filippine.
Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
2018-03-19.
«The Philippines has officially notified the UN secretary-general that it is quitting the ICC. The move comes after it was announced that the court was investigating killings connected with Manila’s war on drugs.»
Come spesso succede, anche attorno a cosa sia, cosa rappresenti e cosa faccia la International Criminal Court sembrerebbe esserci ben poca chiarezza. Cercheremo di esporre una breve sintesi.
«The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. ….
Currently, there are 123 states which are party to the Rome Statute and therefore members of the ICC. » [Fonte]
Si noti però che:
«Rome Statute adopted by 120 States … Rome Statute ratified by 60 States …. Rome Statute took effect upon ratification by 60 States, officially establishing the ICC. Since it has no retroactive jurisdiction, the ICC deals with crimes committed on or after this date.» [International Criminal Court]
Quindi, la Corte potrebbe agire solo ed esclusivamente nei 60 paesi che hanno ratificato il trattato.
*
La International Criminal Court è riconosciuta a livello mondiale da 123 stati: formalmente dovrebbe poter operare solo in essi.
Ciascuno di questi 123 stati ha un suo proprio codice penale e, almeno al momento, non esiste un corpo giuridico inequivocabilmente definito ed accettato a livello mondiale in materia.
Questa situazione si riverbera immediatamente in due importanti settori.
– Le definizioni di cosa debba intendersi per “genocide“, “crimes against humanity“, oppure ancora “war crimes” sono parziali e carenti: molto spesso sono definite caso per caso, sulla scorta dei dati accertati. Ma la imputabilità penale dovrebbe sussistere solo per violazioni di un qualche codice in essere, essendo per definizione reato ciò che esplicitamente sia contemplato nel codice.
– I verdetti della Corte hanno valore solo se applicabili. Ma ciò è ben difficile bei confronti di stati retti da governi solidi e ben armati. Tanto meno nei confronti degli stati che non riconoscono la Iccc.
*
La International Criminal Court non è stata certo esente da critiche, anche molto severe.
«The ICC has been accused of bias and as being a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states. This sentiment has been expressed particularly by African leaders due to an alleged disproportionate focus of the Court on Africa, while it claims to have a global mandate; until January 2016, all nine situations which the ICC had been investigating were in African countries.
The prosecution of Kenyan Deputy President William Ruto and President Uhuru Kenyatta (both charged before coming into office) led to the Kenyan parliament passing a motion calling for Kenya’s withdrawal from the ICC, and the country called on the other 33 African states party to the ICC to withdraw their support, an issue which was discussed at a special African Union (AU) summit in October 2013.» [Fonte]
*
China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, e Yemen non riconoscono la International Criminal Court.
«Four signatory states—Israel, Sudan, the United States and Russia—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the Statute»
Stati Uniti, Cina e Russia non sono paesi di poco conto internazionale.
* * * * * * *
Come si constata, l’autorità della International Criminal Court non accoglie un’audience generale.
La critica più pesante è quella di essere uno strumento politico in mano al “Western imperialism”, anche se sarebbe meglio dire alla componente liberal del mondo occidentale.
*
Ciò premesso, il problema delle Filippine dovrebbe essere chiaro.
In sintesi. Afflitta dal dilagare della droga, con tutte le sue conseguenze, le Filippine hanno deliberato che le forze dell’ordine potessero reagire con le armi qualora spacciatori e drogati avessero resistito all’arresto. Il risultato è stato la quasi scomparsa della droga da quel paese, con circa un tremila spacciatori giustiziati.
La reazione di quanti erano e sono coinvolti nel traffico e smercio di sostanze stupefacenti è stato immediato.
I media occidentali hanno accusato le Filippine di “crimini contro l’umanità“.
*
L’annuncio era stato dato il 9 febbraio 2018.
Harry Roque told reporters Thursday the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor informed Philippines officials they were conducting a preliminary inquiry into whether an investigation is needed.
“The President has said that he also welcomes this preliminary examination because he is sick and tired of being accused of the commission of crimes against humanity,” Roque said.
Duterte sees an ICC examination as an opportunity to rebut allegations against him, Roque said, adding the ICC move was a waste of time and resources, pushed by enemies of the President in order to embarrass him.
The ICC “investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression,” according to its website.
In a statement, Fatou Bensouda, the ICC’s top prosecutor, confirmed she had opened a preliminary examination into the situation in the Philippines which “will analyze crimes allegedly committed … in the context of the ‘war on drugs’ campaign.”
“While some of such killings have reportedly occurred in the context of clashes between or within gangs, it is alleged that many of the reported incidents involved extra-judicial killings in the course of police anti-drug operations,” she said.
Rights groups have long accused Duterte of gross human rights violations in his anti-drug campaign, which Human Rights Watch estimates has claimed the lives of 12,000 people since June 2016. According to the Philippines government, around 3,900 people have been killed in the drug war.
Amnesty International said in October that the campaign of police and extrajudicial killings “may constitute crimes against humanity.”»
*
Da un punto di vista giuridico, si apre il quesito di chi abbia diritto di proporre alla Iccc di svolgere indagini e, nel caso, portare a giudizio. Ufficialmente dovrebbero essere prese in considerazione solo denuncie sporte da stati oppure dalle nazioni Unite, previa votazione.
Ma in questo caso sarebbero state parte attiva delle organizzazioni non governative, quali la Human Rights Watch ed Amnesty International.
In via successiva, sussiste il problema degli asseriti “extrajudicial killings”. Cercheremo di spiegarci meglio. In tutti i paesi del mondo si riconosce alle forze dell’ordine la possibilità di usare le armi durante la fase dell’arresto di un sospetto. Se questi reagisce, specialmente con armi da fuoco, la polizia lo abbatte. Difficile definire questo un “extrajudicial killings“.
Infine, secondo le usuali costumanze penali, ogni uccisione sospetta dovrebbe essere un caso indagato singolarmente: indagini, processi e procedimenti collettivi sono contro le usuali procedure.
*
Da ultimo, ma non certo per ultimo, constatiamo come la Unione Europea abbia stipulato proprio in questi giorni un trattato economico con le Filippine. Tenuto conto della selettività etica dell’Unione nello scegliersi le controparti con cui trattare, si tenderebbe a dire che il problema sia stato alquanto distorto.
In sintesi finale, l’azione della Iccc sembrerebbe essere una iniziativa politica. Sarebbe a nostro avviso opportuno che l’intera faccenda sia portata in sede delle Nazioni Unite, ossia un ampio consesso riconosciuto da quasi tutte le nazioni mondiali ed in grado di prendere decisioni anche coercitive.
The Philippines says it will withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), a month after the judicial body started an inquiry into President Rodrigo Duterte’s controversial war on drugs.
Duterte’s spokesman Harry Roque said in a statement Wednesday the country had given notice that it would withdraw from the treaty that established the court.
Duterte has been accused of encouraging extrajudicial killings and other rights abuses in his bid to rid the country of drugs since his election in 2016.
The ICC announced in February it would begin a preliminary inquiry to determine whether an investigation was needed.
Roque said then Duterte would welcome the probe because “he is sick and tired of being accused …(by) the commission of crimes against humanity.”
Human rights violations
Rights groups have long accused Duterte of gross human rights violations in his anti-drug campaign, which Human Rights Watch estimates has claimed the lives of 12,000 people since June 2016. According to the Philippines government, around 3,900 people have been killed in the drug war.
Duterte has long denied the accusations of human rights abuses and contends the drug issue is one for domestic law enforcement.
He has hit out at United Nations efforts to investigate human rights violations in the country. In a speech earlier this month he ordered police not to cooperate with UN investigators and warned them “do not f*** with me.”
The ICC is not part of the UN, but the two bodies have a cooperation agreement.
The bloody nature of the drugs crackdown has drawn the ire of advocates and international human rights authorities.
Last year, Amnesty International said the alleged extrajudicial killings by police “may constitute crimes against humanity.”
The Philippines is not the first country to quit the ICC. Burundi, Russia, South Africa and Gambia all moved to withdraw from the court.
The ICC is meant to be a “court of last resort,” a place to try dictators and other people who cannot be brought to justice domestically. It has long been controversial for its focus on the developing world, Africa in particular.
Some countries, like the United States, have never joined due to concerns about ceding sovereignty to an international body.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento