STATEMENT BY THE ARAB EUROPEAN LEAGUE ON THE YERODIA RULING BY THE ICJ



Press release 14 02 2001

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. 
===============================================================