UN report on Sudan

The UN International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-Generalreport has been released, and the commission confirmed that atrocities are being committed in Darfur, but that policies of genocide are not being acted upon. The report also said, however, that individuals may be acting with the intent of committing genocide. Tens of thousands have been killed, and up to 1.85 million have been displaced from their homes.

The report made several recommendations, of which the key ones relating to the international community will be listed here. It suggests the trying of culprits in these atrocities in courts of international law. Specifically, they recommended that the UN Security Council refer these cases to the International Criminal Court. They outlined six reasons for doing so:

First, the International Criminal Court was established with an eye to crimes likely to threaten peace and security. This is the main reason why the Security Council may trigger the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 13 (b). The investigation and prosecution of crimes perpetrated in Darfur would have an impact on peace and security. More particularly, it would be conducive, or contribute to, peace and stability in Darfur, by removing serious obstacles to national reconciliation and the restoration of peaceful relations. Second, as the investigation and prosecution in the Sudan of persons enjoying authority and prestige in the country and wielding control over the State apparatus, is difficult or even impossible, resort to the ICC, the only truly international institution of criminal justice, which would ensure that justice be done. The fact that trials proceedings would be conducted in the Hague, the seat of the ICC, far away from the community over which those persons still wield authority and where their followers live, might ensure a neutral atmosphere and prevent the trials from stirring up political, ideological or other passions. Third, only the authority of the ICC, backed up by that of the United Nations Security Council, might compel both leading personalities in the Sudanese Government and the heads of rebels to submit to investigation and possibly criminal proceedings. Fourth, the Court, with an entirely international composition and a
208 set of well-defined rules of procedure and evidence, is the best suited organ for ensuring a veritably fair trial of those indicted by the Court Prosecutor. Fifth, the ICC could be activated immediately, without any delay (which would be the case if one were to establish ad hoc tribunals or so called mixed or internationalized courts). Sixth, the institution of criminal proceedings before the ICC, at the request of the Security Council, would not necessarily involve a significant financial burden for the international community.

The establishment of a commission to arrange compensation for victims was also mentioned, and supported on moral and legal grounds. The report suggests the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, so that there can be a "full disclosure of the whole range of criminality." They did say, however, that

Whether a TRC would be appropriate for Sudan, and at what stage it should be established, is a matter that only the Sudanese people should decide through a truly participatory process. These decisions should ideally occur (i) once the conflict is over and peace is re-established; (ii) as a complementary measure to criminal prosecution, which instead should be set in motion as soon as possible, even if the conflict is underway, with a view to having a deterrent effect, that is, stopping
further violence; and (iii) on the basis of an informed discussion among the broadest possible sections of Sudanese society which takes into account international experience and, on this basis, assesses the likely contribution of a TRC to Sudan.

Read a BBC writeup on the report.