The Arab European League on the Yerodia Ruling by the ICJ

Brussels- The Arab European League have been following with great
interest the procedures and evolutions of the case filed by the
Democratic republic of Congo against The Kingdom of Belgium in front
of the international court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. That case
was filed by Congo to contest the issuing by Belgium of an arrest
warrant against its former foreign minister M. Yerodia Ndombasi in
april 2000 when he was still in office.
A Belgian judge issued that warrant in the framework of a complaint
against M Yerodia in front of a Belgian court according to Belgian's
genocide law of 16 June 1993 modified in 1999 that gives Belgium
universal jurisdiction on grave breaches of international
humanitarian law, like crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Congo argued that M. Yerodia enjoyed diplomatic immunity as a foreign
minister and that Belgium had no right to issue an arrest warrant
against him as long as he stayed in office. And therefore Congo
demanded that the warrant should be annulled.
Today the ICJ decided that Congo was right and that Yerodia did enjoy
immunity at that time hence the warrant should be indeed annulled.
This decision is a set back for the efforts to establish a principle
of accountability for grave breaches of international humanitarian
law and is a victory for those defending impunity. It is ironic that
such a decision is taken at the same time and in the same city where
an ex-president is facing charges emanating fro the same principal of
accountability. This can only illustrate the selective and
inconsistent nature of international justice.
It is very regrettable also that the legal adviser of the Belgian
foreign ministry M. Jan Devadder reacted to Belgium's defeat today
as if it was a victory and stated that he believed "that the Sharon
case will be dropped". It is as if the Belgian foreign ministry is
hoping that this decision will pave the way towards liquidating the
case of the victims of Sabra and Shatilla, and emptying the 1993/1999
law of its content.
However, we believe that today's decision despite being a set back
represents by no means the end of the case against Sharon and the
other perpetrators of Sabra and Shatilla, and our belief is based
upon the following facts:

1- The decision of the ICJ was limited to the issue of validity
of the arrest warrant against Yerodia and did not approach the
principal of universal jurisdiction of the 93/99 law as such, and
this has been clearly stated in the court's decision.
2- Annulling the arrest warrant against Yerodia does not mean
that the criminal investigation against him can not be pursued by the
examining magistrate.
3- A new arrest warrant would be legal as Yerodia is no more in
office and does not enjoy immunity anymore.
4- The ICJ decision assimilates foreign ministers to diplomats
and therefore grants them Diplomatic immunity. It is not at all
stated that other ministers or prime ministers are also to be
assimilated with diplomats and enjoy diplomatic immunity.
5- Even if the Belgian Judiciary decides to apply the principal
of diplomatic immunity in an extensive way including prime ministers,
it will only mean that M. Sharon can not be arrested as long as he is
in office but that the investigation and the charges against him will
not be altered and should be pursued. The moment he is out of office
he loses every claim to diplomatic immunity and can be the subject of
an arrest warrant.
6- The case against general Amos Yaron will in no circumstances
be affected.

We believe that the decision of The ICJ should not be blown out of
its limited proportions. It is a decision on the legality of an
arrest warrant and the issue of diplomatic immunity. The core
principal of the 1993/1999 law remains unaffected by this decision.
However we are aware of the existence of a political will among
certain Belgian politicians to use this decision as an excuse in
order to prevent the victims of the genocide at Sabra and Shatilla
from seeking justice in Belgium.

The project of amending the 93/99 law and the hostile signals coming
from the Belgian foreign ministry towards the Sharon case are all to
be understood as attempts to protect a war criminal just because he
is the prime minister of the state of Israel.

If politics prevail over justice, violence will prevail over legal
action in conflict
resolution. This is not the right time to give such a signal to the
world.

On the sixth of March the court of appeal will pronounce its decision
on the procedural elements and on the competence of Belgian courts to
continue the case that 23 survivors of the carnage at Sabra and
Shatilla filed against Sharon and others. It will be a historical
decision that we believe should be taken without any political
interference. We are convinced that the Law is clear and in favour of
such a complaint. This has been the case before the Yerodia ruling
and did not change after it. The timing of issuing an arrest warrant
and the whole question of diplomatic immunity should all be regarded
as secondary, since the principal of universal jurisdiction of
Belgium stands. We believe that the Court of appeal will decide
accordingly.
===============================================================

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)