Bolivia to take Israel to The Hague

[leftchick]

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:07:31 GMT

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=82554§ionid=351020202


Bolivia is seeking to take Tel Aviv to International Criminal Court over the brutal atrocities the Israeli forces have committed in Gaza.

The Andean state says it is intended to make regional allies take a unified stance against "the Israeli political and military leaders responsible for the offensive on the Gaza Strip" and make it to stand trial at the international body in the Hague, said Sacha Llorenti, whose portfolio covers civil society.

Moves to begin the legal process will begin "probably next week," Bolivia's deputy justice and human rights minister Wilfredo Chavez told journalists during the visit to Geneva, AFP reported on Friday.

Bolivia followed in the steps of its ally Venezuela and severed diplomatic ties with Israel over its massacre of the Gazans and snubbing the international calls for an 'immediate' and 'durable' truce, said the Latin American governments.

The Bolivian president Evo Morales told a group of diplomats in the administrative capital of La Paz that he will request the International Criminal Court (ICC) to file genocide charges against Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

[Christa]

1. Good for them!!

Bolivia has more guts than the rest of the world.

[The Magistrate]

2. This Will Go Nowhere, Ma'am

The Prosecutor of the Court will investigate, and report that there is not the shadow of an evidentiary basis for the charge of genocide under the law, and therefore no basis for the Court to proceed.

[Sanity Claws]

3. Can the UN Security Council prevent this?

I don't know UN procedure and wonder how Israel will get the US to stop this.

[bobd0]

4. That's easy, Olmert will call Bush and tell him to

But he'd better hurry. He only has four days left and I'm hoping Obama doesn't take orders from Olmert the way Bush does.

[Sanity Claws]

5. So what does Bush do to prevent this?

What is the procedure to stop the ICC from acting once Bolivia makes a referral to it?

[cali]

8. The ICC won't even consider this referral

If Morales were smart about it, he would have made the charge of certain war crimes, and not that of genocide.

[bobd0]

14. He doesn't pick up the phone for the next four days

Because, obviously, if he does he will, as always, follow orders from Olmert.

[bobd0]

25. Bush and Israel have already done what they had to do to prevent this

http://en.dunyabulteni.net/news_detail.php?id=34979

Israel and the United States have not signed the Rome Statute creating the court that the 108 countries signed, but that would not prevent the ICC from launching an investigation.

Again the strategy is; when breaking the law simply declare yourself above the law to avoid accountability.

The least the ICC could do is conduct the investigation so that if and or when any of the war criminals travel they can be arrested on sight.

[cali]

6. Please read The Magistrate's post

as he says, this will go no where.

[The Stranger]

11. I read the Magistrate's post.

And I don't see anything other than a short unsubstantiated statement (albeit in bizarre faux legalese).

Do you have analysis, argument, citation or links indicating otherwise? Instead of dismissing this on speculation, I would like to see the facts and how this would play out.

[The Magistrate]

7. It Has Nothing To Do With The Security Council, Ma'am

Since the charge is completely unfounded under relevant law, this will get no further than the Prosecutor of the Court's office.

[Sanity Claws]

10. My question is procedural.

According to you, the Prosecutor of the Court will definitely say there is nothing there and not even investigate.
Does the Prosecutor write a report stating the reasons for declining prosecution?
Also, others see what the events in Gaza at least arguably illegal. Don't you think a prosecutor may view the matter differently than you and at least do a preliminary investigation?

[The Magistrate]

16. Actually, Ma'am, as You Can see Below

The Prosecutor disclaims jurisdiction on more basic grounds inherent in the Rome Statute, since the alleged acts neither are charged to a state which has accepted the Court's jurisdiction, nor occurred on the territory of a state which has accepted the Court's jurisdiction. The only means for jurisdiction would be a referral from the Security Council, which this is not, and which will not occur. So there will not even be a report written, though that would be the first step if basic jurisdictional requirements were meant. That report would be either a dismissal, explaining why no grounds for prosecution were found, or an indictment.

But there is no question, based on precedents from the Tribunals for Yugoslavia, that nothing occurring in Gaza remotely approaches the standards for conviction of the crime of genocide. Nor, judging by report of investigation by the Prosecutor into U.S. actions in Iraq subsequent to 2003, is there any likelihood grounds would be found for proceeding on charges of disproportionality or deliberate killing of civilians, or any of the various lesser charges being bruited about.

The fact is, kost claims that Israel is violating the laws of war are made as simple propagandas, by people who wish the law meant something other than it has been taken to mean by competent tribunals who proceed in a neutral manner, without bias or prejudice towards one side of the conflict.

[Sanity Claws]

17. Again, what's with the ma'am drivel?

I never asked for your opinion on the rightness or wrongness of Bolivia's position. I asked a procedural question. You're so emotional as this issue that you can't read correctly.
Fur

[The Magistrate]

20. Emotional, Ma'am?

People have charged me with many things, but that is a new one....

[Sanity Claws]

15. What's with the "ma'am?"

I ask a simple procedural question and you address me as an idiot.
Further, you're the one who's wrong. Read one of the posts below -- Security Council may make a referral to the ICC. Saying it has nothing to with the ICC is WRONG.

[cali]

18. except the article you're referring to does not say that the SC

may make a referral.

[Sanity Claws]

21. It does

The only other way for prosecution to take place is if the UN Security Council refers a case directly.


This is an exact quote from the article. Read it.

[cali]

23. No. It says that the SC has the authority but please try to read

more carefully. It further says that the U.S. is a member of the SC and has veto power. Anyone who thinks the U.S. wouldn't veto such a move is living in fantasy land.

"In Gaza at present, the ICC lacks such jurisdiction. The ICC can investigate Israel's war crimes only if Tel Aviv voluntarily accepted the court's jurisdiction, or if it is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council," said ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.

A referral from the Security Council is unlikely as the US, a staunch ally of Israel, is a permanent member and has the power to veto any such move."

[Sanity Claws]

26. Read your prior post

You said the article did not state that the SC may make a referral. That is what you said. I then said you were the wrong; the article did say that. I provided a quote for you. You then say that I am wrong in my reading and that anyone who says the US would not veto a SC referral is living in fantasy land.
I KNOW that the US would veto would any such resolution. If you look at my first post on this thread I asked about the Security Council and asked about Israel getting the US to do something, implying that US would veto anything regarding this.

All I know is that I asked a couple of procedural questions. Instead of answers or directions, I got you and the moderator imposing their views on me and addressing me in a snarky condescending manner. You two are obnoxious.
Welcome to my ignore list too.

[cali]

27. wow. make stuff up much.

here's what my initial post said:

except the article you're referring to does not say that the SC
may make a referral.

Oh, and I could give a shit if you put me on ignore.

[The Magistrate]

24. Here Is The Entire Article Referencing President Morales' Initiative, ma'am

"Bolivia is seeking to take Tel Aviv to International Criminal Court over the brutal atrocities the Israeli forces have committed in Gaza.

The Andean state says it is intended to make regional allies take a unified stance against "the Israeli political and military leaders responsible for the offensive on the Gaza Strip" and make it to stand trial at the international body in the Hague, said Sacha Llorenti, whose portfolio covers civil society.

Moves to begin the legal process will begin "probably next week," Bolivia's deputy justice and human rights minister Wilfredo Chavez told journalists during the visit to Geneva, AFP reported on Friday.

Bolivia followed in the steps of its ally Venezuela and severed diplomatic ties with Israel over its massacre of the Gazans and snubbing the international calls for an 'immediate' and 'durable' truce, said the Latin American governments.

The Bolivian president Evo Morales told a group of diplomats in the administrative capital of La Paz that he will request the International Criminal Court (ICC) to file genocide charges against Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

The ICC is competent to adjudicate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed after 2002.

Israel and its closest ally, the United States, are not among the 108 signatories of the Rome Statute creating the Hague-based court in 2000 to investigate and prosecute war crimes.

After 21 days of non-stop bombardment and aggression, the Israeli invasion of Gaza has left 1,133 Palestinians killed and more than 5,200 wounded."


You are welcome to point to any reference in it to the Security Council.

[The Magistrate]

19. President Morales, Ma'am, is Not Petitioning the Security Council

According to the article, anyway, he is going directly to the Court, which will reject his plea, as it has others.

Were the matter to be brought before the Security Council, referral would be vetoed by the United States.

[Sanity Claws]

22. Welcome to my ignore list

I really don't see how someone so reading impaired and snarky was made moderator.

[Scurrilous]

9. ICC has no jurisdiction over Gaza war crimes claims

The Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court says he has no jurisdiction to take action over allegations of possible war crimes committed during Israel's ongoing assault on Gaza. Calls have been made by Palestinian human rights groups for an investigation.

"The International Coalition against Impunity (ICI) is one such group. It wants the ICC to look into the "death and injury of hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children". The rights group wants the international court to indict Israeli leaders for what it says are war crimes.

But the ICC has made it clear that it cannot do this. The court only has jurisdiction over a country, or an individual from a country, which has ratified the treaty setting up the court in the first place. In other words, a country has to accept the ICC's jurisdiction.

ICC statute

The ICC statute says: "The court's powers are limited to prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide committed on the territory of, or by a national of, a state party."

The only other way for prosecution to take place is if the UN Security Council refers a case directly.

"In Gaza at present, the ICC lacks such jurisdiction. The ICC can investigate Israel's war crimes only if Tel Aviv voluntarily accepted the court's jurisdiction, or if it is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council," said ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.

A referral from the Security Council is unlikely as the US, a staunch ally of Israel, is a permanent member and has the power to veto any such move."

more

[The Stranger]

12. Interesting.

Thanks for that.

[Sanity Claws]

13. Thanks -- this answers my question